Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Top Gun on July 30, 2002, 09:55:41 am
-
Does anyone else feel as outraged as I do that people could even consider this (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,58945,00.html) (I know its reported by faux news but the issue has recieved widespread coverage elswhere).
-
****! No way, even if it is possibly false!
(Please excuse my French)
-
am I the only one to notice, that this is the THIRD topic with the name 'What is the world coming to.'.
-
Hey, our world lives on fearmongering. It's something we'll all have to deal with sooner or later. Cudos to anyone who can look at this topic and see the absoulte stupidity of it. And shame to anyone who actually buys one of those things.
-
You know, that kind of development scares me... I mean, after implanting you're kid with some sort of location device, what else will they come up with? A Neural Inhibitor? Something placed into the back of the neck, so if a kid is grounded and decides to "escape" the NI activates and basically makes the child pass out "harmlessly". Or perhaps a remote controlled Contraceptive device?!! So if you're worried about daddies girl getting pregnant you can just flip a switch and she'll be "safe". I'm telling you, if this chip goes into production, these other ideas might come into fruition. Its a scary world... :shaking:
-
It already has, a company called applied digital solutions is selling them at the minute. They've been doing this sort of thing in pets for years.
I think the scariest thing about this is that it's being inflicted on childeren who really don't have any choice in the matter. If it was only for concenting adults it would be much less of an issue.
-
This sounds okay, but control of the system should definitely be restricted to government agencies only (for tracking criminals and such) and citizens should not have access to the monitoring.
-
Ah, that's a pretty thought. :rolleyes:
-
Whoo, boy! Is it just me, or is no one else noticing that we're turning into the "controlled society" like in all the movies?
-
That's what we have always been like. :D
-
Not really, no... I can find a few parallels to our current situation (the Empire, computers from the Matrix...) but few are truly close to now.
-
Well, for the last millennium or so anyway; it is just that the methods of control have been different and there have been no "controllers."
-
Have any of you seen "Imposter"? (Great flick, if you haven't, go check it out). That's what I mean.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Well, for the last millennium or so anyway; it is just that the methods of control have been different and there have been no "controllers."
"The more things change the more they stay the same..."
I just love that phrase.
Originally posted by Unkown Target
Have any of you seen "Imposter"? (Great flick, if you haven't, go check it out). That's what I mean.
If you mean the Gary Sinise movie, yeah. Its ok. Lots of scenes ripped right out of other movies, along with alot of the costumes and props. Even has one of the worst space battles I've ever seen. And you don't see what the aliens look like. Its more like an Outer Limits episode. But apart from the obvious scene ripping and such, it had a good plot and was I guess a good movie. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
This sounds okay, but control of the system should definitely be restricted to government agencies only (for tracking criminals and such) and citizens should not have access to the monitoring.
Are you out of your mind? Anyone that values their liberty should take up arms at the slightest hint of this becoming mandatory.
Generally in the 20th century "control" has remained optional for those who wished to infect themselvs with the meme of religion.
-
The Matrix doesn't seem so sci-fi anymore now does it.
On a similar note, I heard about the GPS system on cell phones, which could be ordered by SMS, by even another person. Nice way of knowing who your girl/boyfriend/husband/wife is hanging out with when your not knowing.
-
"The more things change the more they stay the same..."
hehe :D
Are you out of your mind? Anyone that values their liberty should take up arms at the slightest hint of this becoming mandatory.
Well, liberty by itself is pretty worthless in the end - it is only good as long as it boosts productivity - and nobody can have true liberty in that sense as long as they exist in reality anyway, since their "free wills" are shaped by their surroundings. (the "methods of control" can mostly be traced to this) But that is not important; regardless of whether individuals like it or not, it looks like Schumpeter's prediction of the capitalist/republic system gradually being replaced by some form of socialism (and eventually a true communist system) over the centuries might turn out to be fairly accurate.
-
Eh, explain how the direction world politics and economics even vaguely resembles this prediction (in the shory term). The US, and europe to a certain extent, is becoming more and more plutocratic by the second with wealth more unevenly distributed than ever before. Yes, things are becoming a lot more authoritarian in the style of some of the Communist regiemes that have existed, that's the only thing they have in common. Another thing to note is that the majority of communist regiemes sprung from revolutions, they certainly weren't handed down by a ruling few.
-
Everybody: STOP! This is NOT to become a political thread. Travel down another route, that's it-nothing to see here folks, keep moving.
-
Eh, explain how the direction world politics and economics even vaguely resembles this prediction (in the shory term). The US, and europe to a certain extent, is becoming more and more plutocratic by the second with wealth more unevenly distributed than ever before. Yes, things are becoming a lot more authoritarian in the style of some of the Communist regiemes that have existed, that's the only thing they have in common. Another thing to note is that the majority of communist regiemes sprung from revolutions, they certainly weren't handed down by a ruling few.
I don't have time to write a full response to this, but you might want to read Schumpeter's Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy; all of this is explained in there.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
it looks like Schumpeter's prediction of the capitalist/republic system gradually being replaced by some form of socialism (and eventually a true communist system) over the centuries might turn out to be fairly accurate.
Can you get me a link to it please?
-
*Furiously cuts out a square of white cardboard and attaches it to a stick. Takes out some lovely colorful magic markers and begins to furiously scribble and draw on his sign. He draws several NO words and a rather uneven POLITICS word. Content with his sign, he picks it up and begins to ralley around in circles chanting 'No politics! No politics!'."
:p
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Well, liberty by itself is pretty worthless in the end - it is only good as long as it boosts productivity - and nobody can have true liberty in that sense as long as they exist in reality anyway, since their "free wills" are shaped by their surroundings. (the "methods of control" can mostly be traced to this) But that is not important; regardless of whether individuals like it or not, it looks like Schumpeter's prediction of the capitalist/republic system gradually being replaced by some form of socialism (and eventually a true communist system) over the centuries might turn out to be fairly accurate.
You know, I think CP5670 is now moving ahead of anon in my 'most likely to be totalitarian banana republic dictator' race.
-
Can you get me a link to it please?
This title has become quite famous over the years, so there are several editions of it out it there; a search on Amazon turned this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0061330086/qid=1028080021/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-3895834-5120044) up though. People will have freedom in the end, but not "freedom" in the traditional sense. (think Hegel's version of freedom)
You know, I think CP5670 is now moving ahead of anon in my 'most likely to be totalitarian banana republic dictator' race.
I'm not much of a front-line dictator actually; I am more the kind of person who works behind the scenes instead and indirectly influences the ones in power. ;7
-
Originally posted by CP5670
This title has become quite famous over the years, so there are several editions of it out it there; a search on Amazon turned this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0061330086/qid=1028080021/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-3895834-5120044) up though. People will have freedom in the end, but not "freedom" in the traditional sense. (think Hegel's version of freedom)
I meant an online version (anyone who believes this is "piracy" should note that the guy has been dead for over 50 years).
-
There is probably one around there somewhere if you look around a bit, but I have not seen an online copy yet.
-
what scares me most on this page is the result of the poll...
-
Poll? :confused:
-
on the page shown in the link.
-
There's a poll on the site where about 50% wouldn't even consider it, about another 25% would consider it and another 25% would embrace it.
25% is a huge proportion of the population to be in favour of such a horrific violation of a child's body, which he/she has no say over. They might as well tattoo a bar code accross their forehead and be done with it. The only calming thought is the fact that the poll was on the faux news site which is read and produced by authoritarian right wing toss pots.
-
I don't support it as a consumer-market gadget either (might slow down the emergence of new ideas, which keep the civilization running), but it might be fine as a government surveillance system, although the government would need to be revamped first as well and preferably run by computers.
-
Ahh, computerized government, things are looking up unless someone invents one that accepts payola.
-
It would be much better than a human-based one actually, since a computer could be designed to have no personal ambition (as far as controlling people goes), which is what all the flaws in today's governments stem from.
-
but we would have to wait a looong time before a computer could make moral and ethical desicions, which is what it would need to do in order to run a government.
-
eh, that is exactly what we do not want it to do; humans can make bad decisions because they are encumbered by that limitation. The computer's only goal should be the general well-being of the people of the nation as a whole.
-
It's an Excellent Idea, as long as Microsoft aren't given the job of programming the software.
-
Sooo...hypothetical question: Country "A" has a computerized government. A also has a substantial military. Country "X" is a human dictatorship combining the worst traits of Al Qaeda, and the USSR during the Cold War. X hates A with a passion.
X launches a massive NBC attack on A, killing a sizable portion of the civilian population. The citizenry beg to retaliate. X threatens to launch another attack if A attacks. What would the "CompGov" do?
Satisfy the mass appeal of a full-scale war?
or
Devote all resources to rebuilding society?
or
Something else?
-
It's an Excellent Idea, as long as Microsoft aren't given the job of programming the software.
Or just make sure that all the other companies that hate MS look over the software first. :D
Satisfy the mass appeal of a full-scale war?
or
Devote all resources to rebuilding society?
or
Something else?
More information is needed to make a proper decision, but in most of the situations the best option would be the first one. Take them by surprise and wipe out everything as fast as possible so to make sure they cannot retaliate.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
The computer's only goal should be the general well-being of the people of the nation as a whole.
Intresting... but a computer smart enough to make decisions that complex is probably going to need AI. A computer with AI is dangerous enough. A computer with AI and a sizeable army and country in its hands = :headz:
and on the general topic of this thread
Personal tracker chips would make our lives a lot safer, someone would always know where you are if you get into trouble... but you have to balance that with personal privacy.
-
The thing that scares me most relating to these kinds of gadgets is the promotion/demotion of ideas and concepts by government and/or individuals. I would hate having parents forcefully "promote" religious beliefs into children, demoting the creation of creative thought...
-
I would hate having parents forcefully "promote" religious beliefs into children, demoting the creation of creative thought...
Yeah, that is along the lines of what I was thinking when it came to free thinking; as I said before though, this could probably be remedied by only allowing autonomous government computers to have access to these things.
A computer with AI and a sizeable army and country in its hands = :headz:
Well, that depends on the AI. :D
-
I would hate having parents forcefully "promote" religious beliefs into children, demoting the creation of creative thought...
Look arround man, the forceful promotion is still subtle but it's happening everywhere.
Well, that depends on the AI. :D
[/B]
I think that most AI's are controled by logic, not fake personalities(which would be tainted by it's programmer\sponcer and thus illogical).
-
Originally posted by beatspete
Personal tracker chips would make our lives a lot safer, someone would always know where you are if you get into trouble... but you have to balance that with personal privacy.
Quite frankly, I'd rather take the risk rather than have someone always know where I am. I'd rather die than be caged up in that way and would fight to the death if anyone tryed to force it onto me.
The sooner computerized government is invented, the better. Government today is not based on logic but tradition (largely Judeo Christian). A government based on logic would soon purge all idiotic religious/ancient customs (circumcision, sexual repression, monogomy only families, conformity etc.) Human Tradition based government itself leads to suffering and backwardsness and then there's corruption.
-
These things present too many problems to be made mainstream. I assume they can be removed, or else what happens when the child is 25, moved out of home and completely out of his/her parents dominion (or whatever). What then? Or what about when the child grows up to 13/14 and they choose to have the chip removed. Who has the final say - the child or the parent? Either way it's not fair.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Well, that depends on the AI. :D
Did you check those Culture books I told you about on the other thread? ;7
-
The sooner computerized government is invented, the better. Government today is not based on logic but tradition (largely Judeo Christian). A government based on logic would soon purge all idiotic religious/ancient customs (circumcision, sexual repression, monogomy only families, conformity etc.) Human Tradition based government itself leads to suffering and backwardsness and then there's corruption.
A computer thats smart enough to be the AI of an entire government is also going to be smart enough to figure out that it doesn't need us around to get in its way. Humans have alot of flaws....were not talking one or two, were talking thousands of flaws per individual and no-one is exempt from that. But! There's always a but. I'd still rather have humans in charge of their own destiny than a computer that has only logic, no emotion, feeling, understanding, compassion, hatred, honor, pain, joy, or life.
-
An AI in the government? I vote for SHODAN! :D
-
Originally posted by IceFire
A computer thats smart enough to be the AI of an entire government is also going to be smart enough to figure out that it doesn't need us around to get in its way.
That's why you'd put ethical constraints in it, or simply code it to be nice to people. ;)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
eh, that is exactly what we do not want it to do; humans can make bad decisions because they are encumbered by that limitation. The computer's only goal should be the general well-being of the people of the nation as a whole.
Ok, what if a child has been raised by the wrong parents due to a switch at birth. 10-15 Years later the biological parents discover this and want the child back.
The law says that the biological parents have a RIGHT to have custody but the child doesn't want it and it might inflict psycological damage on the child. What would this "computerized Judge" do? Follow the law or choose to help the child. As you see it it would follow the law and inflict psycological damage. Therefor I think IF we were to have a computerized government it should be able to make moral and emotional decisions.
-
The world is bad, yes. Government corruption in the west, social depravation in the east, love doesn't exist, birds can't sing due to noise pollution and so on...
Well what to do?
*Wallow in fear and self-pity or
* go out, do your damndest to change it, to have fun, to fall in love, have good mates, i.e. to make it better for each other.
Personally I go with the latter.
Oh yes, and although I believe in human government, I think Topgun was right about one thing: Quite frankly, I'd rather take the risk rather than have someone always know where I am. I'd rather die than be caged up in that way and would fight to the death if anyone tryed to force it onto me.
[end of rant]
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Ok, what if a child has been raised by the wrong parents due to a switch at birth. 10-15 Years later the biological parents discover this and want the child back.
The law says that the biological parents have a RIGHT to have custody but the child doesn't want it and it might inflict psycological damage on the child. What would this "computerized Judge" do? Follow the law or choose to help the child. As you see it it would follow the law and inflict psycological damage. Therefor I think IF we were to have a computerized government it should be able to make moral and emotional decisions.
Then again, you're pointing a flaw at the law, not at the "government". ;)
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Then again, you're pointing a flaw at the law, not at the "government". ;)
But it is the Government who makes the law ;) .
(Ow, and if you know how to fix this if we have a computerized government... Tell me!)
-
The sooner computerized government is invented, the better. Government today is not based on logic but tradition (largely Judeo Christian). A government based on logic would soon purge all idiotic religious/ancient customs (circumcision, sexual repression, monogomy only families, conformity etc.) Human Tradition based government itself leads to suffering and backwardsness and then there's corruption.
I completely agree there. Tradition and this illogical resistance to change is exactly what has severely plagued not only the governments of today but the entire cultural system by which humanity operates.
A computer thats smart enough to be the AI of an entire government is also going to be smart enough to figure out that it doesn't need us around to get in its way. Humans have alot of flaws....were not talking one or two, were talking thousands of flaws per individual and no-one is exempt from that. But! There's always a but. I'd still rather have humans in charge of their own destiny than a computer that has only logic, no emotion, feeling, understanding, compassion, hatred, honor, pain, joy, or life.
Actually, this will not be a problem at all if the computer is given a specific directive. But regardless of that, by the time this type of thing becomes a reality the human and the computer will have become completely indistinguishable (even now, both are moving to the same end from opposite directions), and so it would not make any difference there anyway if the objective remains the same. Even today, how are humans "in charge of their own destiny?" As far as I can tell, we will always be subject to the laws of science and the laws of science alone, regardless of who is running things. All those things you mentioned at the end are exactly why humans are unfit to administrate, because they become at times influenced by those things and lose the abilitiy to objectively reason, thus making poor choices. Most of the ethical rules follow from logical reasoning, which is why they are here today in the first place, but there are still times when these rules no longer hold, and this is the area in which the computer succeeds where the human fails.
The law says that the biological parents have a RIGHT to have custody but the child doesn't want it and it might inflict psycological damage on the child. What would this "computerized Judge" do? Follow the law or choose to help the child. As you see it it would follow the law and inflict psycological damage. Therefor I think IF we were to have a computerized government it should be able to make moral and emotional decisions.
As Styxx said, that is just a flaw in the current government system. Besides, if the computer is given information that tells it that such "psychological damage" would be inflicted for most people in this situation, it would act accordingly. (that is, assuming that this psychological damage affects productivity)
Did you check those Culture books I told you about on the other thread? ;7
I found some information about them on the internet; looks interesting... ;)
-
CP; why do you suggest that movements towards authoritarianism are indicative of a move towards Socialism and Communism?
Also, did you see what happened when they programmed Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics into computers? They react...err, strangely. You'd need a lot of qualifying information in there, and even then you'd face problems.
Surely, after all your logic-based computer government is conditional upon having a logic-based human society. An illogical human society would not accept a purely logical government because it would go against too many taboos and traditions - and even be willing to sacrifice individuals for the common good, etc. Irrational humans would not necessarily perceive this greater good, and oppose their sacrifice. ;)
Of course, by the time that human society is (if it ever is) completely logical and would logically accept computer government, it wouldn't need it to make decisions. The only possible benefit would be that it could work faster than humans and once again it would be relagated to administrative tasks.
And Top Gun: I don't see what you're hoping for a computer government for. It seems to me that one of the most logical decisions a computer could make would be to install all sorts of monitoring devices in society such as these chips you abhor. After all, it would cut crime, cut unnecessary timewasting, etc etc. It's one of those society/individual debates again. Even I can't deny that although individuals may resent this privacy intrustion, in terms of society the chips would be an improvement. You could say that you're being illogical by opposing them.
...But now I'm getting like CP. Someone please kill me. :)
-
CP; why do you suggest that movements towards authoritarianism are indicative of a move towards Socialism and Communism?
The two pretty much go together as far as the current cultural paradigm is concerned. I think that the weakest link in the system of capitalism is that it is completely reliant on the currently dominant cultural system, so it would also change with that. These economic trends are largely determined by the same things that political ones are: the social and cultural systems, which in turn are operated by the other two, making it into a circular system. The way things are going right now in the generality, we should be heading for a true communist system at some point in the future, even though it may still be tens of thousands of years away.
Also, did you see what happened when they programmed Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics into computers? They react...err, strangely. You'd need a lot of qualifying information in there, and even then you'd face problems.
There actually was not all that much "strange" behavior from them as far as I can remember; the robots were doing things quite well in that series of books. This is more of a technical issue though, and these type of things just need to be given time to be corrected.
Surely, after all your logic-based computer government is conditional upon having a logic-based human society. An illogical human society would not accept a purely logical government because it would go against too many taboos and traditions - and even be willing to sacrifice individuals for the common good, etc. Irrational humans would not necessarily perceive this greater good, and oppose their sacrifice. ;)
This is one of those things that does not need to be "accepted" by the individuals alone (heck, when we are talking on this scale, nothing needs to be) and is more decided by mass-psychological "forces" that determine human affairs in the long term; the move towards a unified organism will not come out of a willingness, but a necessity. (or of course, a move in the opposite direction, but either way, the current human government system would be replaced) As I said before, by the time this happens, the human and the computer will have become one anyway (retaining the computer's deductive unit and the human randomizer), so it would not make any difference who is running the show.
The only possible benefit would be that it could work faster than humans and once again it would be relagated to administrative tasks.
Well, that's the whole point. :p
...But now I'm getting like CP. Someone please kill me. :)
Good, good. You know you want to be like me. ;7
-
Originally posted by CP5670
The two pretty much go together as far as the current cultural paradigm is concerned. I think that the weakest link in the system of capitalism is that it is completely reliant on the currently dominant cultural system, so it would also change with that. These economic trends are largely determined by the same things that political ones are: the social and cultural systems, which in turn are operated by the other two, making it into a circular system. The way things are going right now in the generality, we should be heading for a true communist system at some point in the future, even though it may still be tens of thousands of years away.
I don't see how Capitalism can be defined as an inherently liberal system - Hell, it isn't now - and Communism an inherently illiberal one. It's just that the excuses for Communism that we have seen either haven't actually been Communism (in the case of the USSR) or the necessary social conditions for true Communism to flourish don't exist and thus other methods such as coercion and force are used. It would be difficult for example for a true Communist system to exist directly after unfettered capitalism due to tradition learned habits.
-
You are right that we have not seen any real communists yet, but in any case, a true communist system would not allow for private corporations at all, which is the main foundation of capitalism. Neither have anything to do with liberty; people are in control of the government in one, and the corporations in the other. :D
-
Originally posted by Kellan
And Top Gun: I don't see what you're hoping for a computer government for. It seems to me that one of the most logical decisions a computer could make would be to install all sorts of monitoring devices in society such as these chips you abhor. After all, it would cut crime, cut unnecessary timewasting, etc etc. It's one of those society/individual debates again. Even I can't deny that although individuals may resent this privacy intrustion, in terms of society the chips would be an improvement. You could say that you're being illogical by opposing them.
A computer does axactly what you pragram it to do, It would be stupid and impossible to make one with the ability to evolve, or an AI in the Hollywood sense of the word. One that could simply take in problems, process them and make decisions based on the utilitarian values we give it. Also, the Idea of chipping people is one that comes from Human's Lust for power. The computer could (rightly) precieve it as too intrusive, inconvenient and violating of people's bodies to be worth giving to solve a relatively small crime problem, which is less of a concearn to the people that mandatory chipping would be.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
You are right that we have not seen any real communists yet, but in any case, a true communist system would not allow for private corporations at all, which is the main foundation of capitalism. Neither have anything to do with liberty; people are in control of the government in one, and the corporations in the other. :D
Communism could be a utopia for all if it's managed in caring hands (with the corporation striving to better things for the people rather than make a profit). Don't forget we're not talking about civil liberties, we're talking about the liberty of private enterprize which also means the liberty of the rich (with wealth passed on through the family) to get richer off the backs of the people, to manipulate the press to further their own ideas, to push their iseas onto people through propaganda or mematics. Of course if a highly powerful full communist government succumbed to corruption, things would be terrible.
A responsible Communist government would respect the civil liberties of the people they're supposed to empower. The problem with a lot of communist governments in the past is that they've treated Marx's ideology as a religion rather than developing and evolving it.
-
The Tracking Device: I don't have a problem with it, when you have people that live in your country that are from another country making them easier to track, and if they leave then it can be removed and if they become a citizen then as well it can be removed. Children can't make logical descesions or distinguish the difference between reality and imagination, so at that time parents should have ALL say in what happens to the child. A test of reasoning or a certain age should be determined to allow the chip to be removed. I doubt most of us care if the government sees your bum from some camera in space since most are law abiding citizens and have nothing really to hide. I don't know if you UKer's seen the American version of CNN lately, but there has been a lot of "copycat" abductions lately with several ending in death. CA's new Amber Alert System yesterday did prevent two girls from being killed, after they were sexaully assaulted by an abductor who was shot by police, but I bet that was just a rare case where the system actually worked.
Communism: Wouldn't the people of your communist utopia have to have some kind of ambition?
-
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
The Tracking Device: I don't have a problem with it, when you have people that live in your country that are from another country making them easier to track, and if they leave then it can be removed and if they become a citizen then as well it can be removed. Children can't make logical descesions or distinguish the difference between reality and imagination, so at that time parents should have ALL say in what happens to the child. A test of reasoning or a certain age should be determined to allow the chip to be removed. I doubt most of us care if the government sees your bum from some camera in space since most are law abiding citizens and have nothing really to hide. I don't know if you UKer's seen the American version of CNN lately, but there has been a lot of "copycat" abductions lately with several ending in death. CA's new Amber Alert System yesterday did prevent two girls from being killed, after they were sexaully assaulted by an abductor who was shot by police, but I bet that was just a rare case where the system actually worked.
Oh whoop de doo, CNN says that all there's a lot of crime :rolleyes: that must mean that we have to be chipped and tracked like cattle :rolleyes: Crime is a symptom of a free society. The inconvenience and loss of freedom suffered by a great many more people is worse than any amount of crime could ever be. Law enforcement officers should protect the public and laws should be designed to protect the public. We should not have to follow a law unless it does just that and should not be dictated to us.
Mass surveilence is the sociological answer to a Padded cell, for everyone, no matter if they've actually comitted a crime or not.
Who are these so called "Criminals"? People who crack Digital Restrictions Management systems, pot smokers, fornicators (if you live in the South or Mid West), polygamists? Let's put them all in Prison without trial and throw away the key, that'll teach them for being such enimies of freedom :rolleyes:
-
crack Digital Restrictions Management systems, pot smokers, fornicators (if you live in the South or Mid West), polygamists,
those who drink alcohol, mp3 users, people who look at p0rn, those with a bit national pride, etc.
'ere I fall into a few of these categories!
EDIT: ARGH! WHY DO I KEEP SCREWING UP MY VB CODE TONIGHT?!
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
Who are these so called "Criminals"? People who crack Digital Restrictions Management systems, pot smokers, fornicators (if you live in the South or Mid West), polygamists? Let's put them all in Prison without trial and throw away the key, that'll teach them for being such enimies of freedom :rolleyes:
Umm maybe murders, rapist, thieves,and serial killers?
-
Communism could be a utopia for all if it's managed in caring hands (with the corporation striving to better things for the people rather than make a profit). Don't forget we're not talking about civil liberties, we're talking about the liberty of private enterprize which also means the liberty of the rich (with wealth passed on through the family) to get richer off the backs of the people, to manipulate the press to further their own ideas, to push their iseas onto people through propaganda or mematics. Of course if a highly powerful full communist government succumbed to corruption, things would be terrible.
That would be very nice, but the only way that such a corporation can exist is if it is a direct arm of the government, in which case it would not really be a corporation at all in the traditional sense, since the only reasons corporations exist at all is to make money. You are right about the last part, but if steps are taken to ensure that these huge, sprawling MS-like business do not come up everywhere (and they are primarily the ones responsible for the corruption, since most of the money is concentrated in them) it should work out okay in the end.
A responsible Communist government would respect the civil liberties of the people they're supposed to empower. The problem with a lot of communist governments in the past is that they've treated Marx's ideology as a religion rather than developing and evolving it.
Well that depends; the goal in the end of a government should be a two-fold one of the continued survival of its society (the people) and the progress of knowledge, and civil liberties of certain types may or may not contribute to either of the goals. But if a capable computer is running things, it should be able to determine the details quite easily and find a solution. You are right that some governments have stuck to Marx like a religion but then again, there has not been any true communist nation in the world (i.e. in the way of Marx's original vision) and they have all turned into some sort of messed up power struggle in the end; this can be attributed to the current cultural system's dictations and so just needs to time to work out currently.
those who drink alcohol, mp3 users, people who look at p0rn, those with a bit national pride, etc.
'ere I fall into a few of these categories!
All of these types of people you guys mentioned are simply the end products of the cultural system of today. The culture is spread by its widespread acceptance, creating a bit of a vicious circle, but these circles evolve and break up over the centuries and can be subtly influenced anyway by propaganda-style techniques.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
That would be very nice, but the only way that such a corporation can exist is if it is a direct arm of the government, in which case it would not really be a corporation at all in the traditional sense, since the only reasons corporations exist at all is to make money.
Sorry, The Corporation was the name given to local authorities who ran municipal services (waste disposal, enviranmental health, local road maintainence, local buses/trains/underground/trams etc and owned rented accomodation.
Umm maybe murders, rapist, thieves,and serial killers?
Most women/men are raped by people who are well known to them and they can identify. Mass surveilence wouldn't help in most of those cases.
Serial killers have mental conditions that cause them to commit crimes, most serial killers are very blatant about their killings. The ones that aren't are a very rare ocourance.
Thievs have to have a motive to steal something, address that motive and instances of theft will be cut dramatically. Have you ever seen any millionaire theives?
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
Most women/men are raped by people who are well known to them and they can identify. Mass surveilence wouldn't help in most of those cases.
But it would help in catching them. That is what they are trying to do. Unless you can see the future there is little you can do before the crime is commited but the perp can always be caught, unless they are dead of course.
Originally posted by Top Gun
Serial killers have mental conditions that cause them to commit crimes, most serial killers are very blatant about their killings. The ones that aren't are a very rare ocourance.
And tracking known suspects would help police a lot more than having people tail them 24/7.
Originally posted by Top Gun
Thieves have to have a motive to steal something, address that motive and instances of theft will be cut dramatically. Have you ever seen any millionaire theives?
The motive of most theives is to get something they don't want to pay for. And again tracking known suspects would help a lot. And then again, removal of the right hand would help as well. Millionaires have no need to steal, but some trailer trash that needs some quick cash does have a perfect motive.
-
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
The motive of most theives is to get something they don't want to pay for. And again tracking known suspects would help a lot. And then again, removal of the right hand would help as well. Millionaires have no need to steal, but some trailer trash that needs some quick cash does have a perfect motive.
And so you would rather monitor these people than try and alleviate their poverty, which is their motive for theft. :p
And Top Gun, about the computer government: a computer doesn't neccessarily always do what it's programmed to. I didn't 'tell' my computer to display the Blue Screen Of Death or to corrupt my FS2 mission. In addition, the creation of an inflexible computer system would mean that ideas that were increasingly culturally outmoded were imposed on society. That, or some kind of totalitarian stagnation. Making such a computer system compliant with ever-changing society would be a full-time job in itself.
Besides all that, any machine that humans built could not be truly logical in a pure mathematical sense - anything built by the hand of an imperfect being is bound itself to be imperfect. Since humanity itself obstructs logical thought, how could humans be expected to express complete logic to the computer in the first place?
You may also find that it's perception of mathematical logic does not sit well with your perception of what is logical. So for example a computer programmed to function from a base of maintaining civil rights may not support these chips, but from CP5670's 'productivity' base of logic it would certainly be more productive for society as a whole if everyone was monitored to prevent unnecessary time-wasting, reduce the costs of crime and so on.
Computers as a means of government might be worth investigating but I find it amusing that you place so much faith in a system that exists only hypothetically. :D
-
Sorry, The Corporation was the name given to local authorities who ran municipal services (waste disposal, enviranmental health, local road maintainence, local buses/trains/underground/trams etc and owned rented accomodation.
That is interesting; I didn't know that, but then it is just a matter of words. A corporation of that sort would not really be a corporation at all in the way we think of it today. ;)
Computers as a means of government might be worth investigating but I find it amusing that you place so much faith in a system that exists only hypothetically.
The usual reason: the current system has failed us, and the new one would appear to work better from judging from the theories we have so far. :D
-
Originally posted by Kellan
And Top Gun, about the computer government: a computer doesn't neccessarily always do what it's programmed to. I didn't 'tell' my computer to display the Blue Screen Of Death
That's due to Microsoft's crappy programming, Mac OS, Solaris, BSD, Linux (whatever flavour), VMS, BeOS and others don't blue screen.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
The usual reason: the current system has failed us, and the new one would appear to work better from judging from the theories we have so far. :D
Or:
"The grass is always greener on the other side."
-
Top Gun: I can't vouch for the others, but the MAC OS is every bit as unstable as Windows. The only reason it doesn't have a blue screen of death is that it usually just locks up (and is impossible to reboot without pulling the plug, since Mac power buttons are software-regulated), and when it doesn't it goes black. But that's not a blue screen describing the problem, is it?:rolleyes: It's fantastic that you have to track it on your own.
-
Which version are you talking about? OS X's Darwin should never crash in a million years, I'm not sure about the GUI. (KDE 2 has locked up on me twice in six months) but from all accounts the BSD style darwin is rock solid.
-
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
The motive of most theives is to get something they don't want to pay for. And again tracking known suspects would help a lot. And then again, removal of the right hand would help as well. Millionaires have no need to steal, but some trailer trash that needs some quick cash does have a perfect motive.
So now we're racist as well. The fact that a tiny minority of people have been living in Vulgar excess from the day they were born* and certain people are in virtually unescapable poverty traps means we're any more justified in locking them up for stealing than they are for actually doing the stealing?
Until society is totally meritocratic then then we don't have a moral (allowing for some fluctuation between whatever people have interpreted as moral) leg to stand on when talking about theft.
*and even self made millionaires are just lucky. There's no positive correlation between affluence and work and intelligence.
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
So now we're racist as well.
Trailer trash don't constitute a race. :p
-
Originally posted by Kellan
Trailer trash don't constitute a race. :p
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooh :)
COLD :D
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
So now we're racist as well.
Trailer Trash (i agree with Kellan somewhat) could be black, white, brown, green, yellow, etc.
"Trailer Trash" does not refer to a certain race
-
They're still a vulnerable minority group.
-
true, true
-
well, one could also say that mass-murderer McVeigh-style guys are also a vulnerable minority group... :p :D
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
They're still a vulnerable minority group.
I'm just striving for better linguistic expression to avoid misunderstandings and your words being used against you. Throwing around inappropriate comments about racism is not going to help solve problems but give people a reason to ignore you as inaccurate/crazy. :)