Derek McGowan

its about 3 hours from me... I havent been there yet though : (

i can agree with that, Moralist

I'll tell you why the government keeps getting bigger. Its because when a governor or a president (mostly liberals) gets even a slight surplus, whether from receiving more tax money than they previously calculated, or from money won from lawsuits against companies breaking x laws, or the ending of time defined projects (such as war or infrastructure) .... Every FRICKING time.. instead of them taking the money and giving it back to the citizens, or using it to pay down debts, they decided now is the perfect time to start A NEW PROGRAM!!! Its like their brains don't understand that if you start something with EXTRA money you have this year, that is no guarantee that you will have that extra supply of money next year. The new bills will keep coming in (causing more taxes and borrowing) the cronies will seek out the jobs created in this new department (creating waste as they hire more and more of their friends) and more than likely, the program will not actually DO anything. Then when the program is challenged, more shallow jobs are created in order to lobby for the program to continue. These departments also burn through boat loads of money near the end of the fiscal year in order to prevent their budgets from being cut down to... I don't know.. maybe the amount they really need! Maybe down to nothing! Rinse and repeat. The government can't bring itself to get rid of zombie departments and they then have a surplus elsewhere and create more zombie departments. What really blows for me is when stuff that I want my money to go to gets ignored, like the bloody streets. Fix the the bloody STREETS! Rant over and out

the things I don't like about this essay are 1. I always have a adverse reaction when someone says something along the line of "if you don't like what you get (on the job in capitalism, whether we are talking wages or conditions) then you are free to leave" but they never hold the business owner to the same standard of being free to leave. This is why I like the concept behind Atlas Shrugged, because Galt tried to add that option- free to leave, where as most people who use the free to leave thing do not say that the business owner is free to get out of the business but instead it is their inherent right to have a business and run it without complaint from those outside. They don't have a right to- people not asking for raises, to- people not complaining about their business practices online, to- prevent interest groups from fomenting public pressure to change working conditions. If the worker has no reason to complain about what they consider to be low pay, then the owner has no reason to complain about the complaints- they can get out of the business. 2. I don't know what the actual working environment that Dickens imagined was the case during the time of his story but the essayist doesn't take into account the fact that there may be no other jobs and Cratchit simply wanted a raise from his employer. Is there anything wrong with asking for a raise? And if you don't get it, especially if you think you deserve it, then there is nothing wrong with complaining about it. So he tried to negotiate for some fringe benefits (paid holidays), nothing wrong with that. The essayist shouldn't dwell on it as such. People ask for stuff and don't get it and still can't leave because having whatever they get is still better than getting nothing BUT that doesn't mean you can't want more. 3. How is it different to lend the money to pay for Sid instead of essentially lending the money to Cratchit to pay for Tim? Seems like the same thing to me from the stand point that the essayist took (one of- if he doesn't get his money back then he can't lend it out) If on the other hand, the if essayist simply said that Scrooge should demand his money because he and Cratchit agreed to a payment schedule and regardless of the circumstances that have come up in the intervening time before payment in full, the contract must be followed, then I would be fine with his analysis. At the same time, I too think that Scrooge was really not that bad of a guy and was clearly exaggerated to make Dickens' greed=evil point. The essayist could have done a better job explaining that to the general public, instead his approach is one of preaching to the choir

In the wake of the four shooting recently and with the conversation that followed/follows, I figured I should give some experiences from my back ground in case anyone doesn't really no what it is like. I will start by saying that I hold no ill will toward the police and I will not give my feelings on these situations but I present them so that you can put yourself in the shoes of a black male and see how you would feel about this happening to you. Also, I have never been to jail, never been in trouble, I have never even been suspended from school. I have never smoked, don't go to parties, and probably drink 8-10 oz of alcohol per year (not an exaggeration). I hardly curse and have only been to court for either traffic violations (as defendant) or rent court (as the landlord) I have never hung out with the wrong crowd and spent most of my child hood summers at the Smithsonian, the Aquarium, Zoo or Science Center, but..... I do and always have lived in the city of Baltimore. 1. I was leaving out of my mothers house one morning, saw some movement out of the corner of my eye, turned and found the yard to be filled (at least ten) with ATF agents. Their unmarked vehicles blocking the alley and two of them running up the back porch steps to confront me. After a sit down (as in I was caused to sit down) conversation they said they thought that the car parked on the parking pad matched the description of someone they were looking for, it wasn't it. 2. I turned the corner from the sub shop and was heading back to the house when a white van pulled up beside me, the driver asking for directions. When I approached the van, the side door slide open and out jumped two undercover cops who questioned me about what I had just been doing around the corner. I explained that I picked up food for a friend and was heading home. 3. Me and an friend of a friend (electrician) were working on the bells to one of my rental properties, suddenly a police car made a swift U-turn stopped in front of the house and asked what we were doing. I explained. 4. I had two vacancies on the first floor of a rental and was in the front one doing some work. The door open, a cop walks in and asked if he could look around. I said " I guess, sure" He pulled out the flashlight (this was during the day) searched the one area then left. I thought he was gone but then I found him walking out of the back apt. I didn't say he could search back there, neither did he ask. 5. Sitting in my sister's car early one morning. Me, my sister and her husband. He was going to drop us off college (we both went to the same one at the time) Its early (6 am dark) during the winter and we were warming the car up suddenly flashing lights and a knock at the window. It was implied that we were in the process of stealing the car. 6. Pulled over for a traffic stop and asked if the car could be searched. 7. I was at work talking to the stock receiver. Police came in and began questioning him. Someone in the grocery store said that they saw him exposing his schlong in public and in front of her child. He was fixing his belt 8. Pulled over. Officer said I didn't stop at the stop sign. I said no sir, I was sure to stop. He said (and I'm not joking) "I know, I just thought that... nver mind, I just had a feeling." Take these experiences however you would like

While away from commenting on this forum I have been caught up in working on the problems and solutions of AI (not in so much of a technical sense as I am not a computer scientist, coder, programmer or anything else more in a philosophical (?) sense) I believe I have found several solutions and I'm actually pretty confident that I can work out several others. Problem is, because I have no programming ability to actually test my theories then all I have is arm chair theories. My sister is a programmer but I doubt I can get her or anyone else to spend thousands of hours constructing my theories for zero pay. First thing I see is that if you use very nearly ANY programming that causes a specific outcome in the AI then you have immediately failed because that is where the machine loses free will.- I believe I have solved it Second, AI does need a strong natural language ability. I put "need" in italics because actually it doesn't, it does simply to satisfy the average person that this thing is intelligent. Example, animals solve problems and do many things that if a non speaking human did it would qualify as intelligence but because those animals cannot speak (English!) then they are considered by a large part of the population as being unintelligent. But I do see the need to be able to communicate with such a creation so it still is important to the project- I haven't solved it and I'm still wrestling with the idea that that is not my job. That the natural language portion is a separate program for a separate team which is added to my AI, the same as vision wouldn't be my concern but a team who creates that component and adds it would certainly make the AI more able to relate to humans. Second and a half. Expectations. Anyone who thinks that it can never be considered AI until it can play master chess, compose a symphony (which you personally would like), paint pictures, and philosophize about death and the after life, need to tone down your expectations. Can you do all of those things? Why does this AI have to be Leonardo Da Vinci. Also, you cannot expect the AI to give you the correct answers to things and you can't expect it to always follow orders. That would be mixing the computer (machine tool of humans) too closely with what should be an independent AI Third, problem solving is a critical ability to be considered intelligent- I would say I'm a confident 60% solved on that one Fourth, Learning- solved, no problem including a component of curiosity and the drive to grow itself. Fifth, awareness of itself and its place in an environment - solved, including a world-view Sixth, internal conflicts. Very important in people. Balancing what the outside world wants to do with your time with what you want to do with your time, or/and the two components of ones own personality which very often come into conflict. These have very much shaped the face of what we call human- solved. I believe those are the only components that an universal AI would need. Again, adding the Sight and touch components would make it better. This would not have emotions but I see emotions as being merely one actor in the internal conflict dance and I've already covered that. I could be missing other parts and the parts that I have so-called solved probably don't work. But it is a very nice thought experiment to work out over time

Above Brant #56 said you cannot prove a negative uhh.. I'm pretty sure I can prove (through direct experiment and by scientific examination of your muscle fibers) that you cannot bench press a ton

http://gizmodo.com/could-we-have-built-a-computer-in-the-18th-century-1657458319 This article really brings in to focus the amount of generational work that had to take place to create the modern computer, therefore it makes all future advancements seem possible

I would like to know what test would you devise to prove that either people can reason or that animals cannot because right now your proof sounds a lot like the early reason why women weren't allowed to vote- to the effect of women do not think politically edit: if you can't see who wrote the above quote (which for some reason I cannot when I post it) it was Peter Taylor #46

That's like saying that its okay and we would rejoice in the ability to "pay more" for sport enhancing drugs. No, the community would not like that the same as they try to weed out those who use cheat software to see through walls or give themselves invincibility. There are even restrictions on those who disconnect before they lose a match in order to prevent the loss from appearing on their record

Oh, and it only took about four minutes to solve

Here is the real question. If one person doesn't know what he is talking about. Do two people who don't know what they are talking about, know more or less than the one person?! No really 1. The ball cost 5 cents. 2. It takes five minutes to make 100 3. 47 days to reach half. And if my answers are correct which I think they are, I would like to state that I didn't cheat

Hopefully we will be able to get internet over power lines soon. This will end this whole thing. Sorry for the multiple posts, again the phone

MSK, your responses show that you understand the throttle problem. This can disrupt an entire new paradigm that the internet is becoming. Second I know that you guys problem is the government part. I said that in my second response. Third I said that I dont need government to be involved either. I said I don't care who enforced it but if no one else can then bring on the government. Also, how did telephone communications suffer when the government stepped in with its public utility spiel? Appears to me that that worked out fine for people like me (customers) maybe it didn't work out so well for the tel-coms.

Msk, I am on my phone so I can't quote and you are right no one specifically said "fast lanes" instead Jon and JTS on page one said "fees for fast" which in my opinion mean the same thing

Those examples you used Selene are not applicable. They are ones where the government stepped in to STOP a behavior that was already a part of the business. Polluting rivers was a major part of industry. The business model was based on easily getting rid of waste. The government disrupted the business model by ending the cheap method of waste removal thereby adding a new cost to the business in exchange for environmental protection. The net neutrality rules (the real ones) aren't getting in the way of any established business models. They are instead preventing that working business model from being changed. Try again

The first picture you linked to Selene says, it's not broken. I agree and THAT is what net neutrality is. Leave the model as it is. How is an ISP who wants to change the model somehow right in your book?

The invasive plan that was formulated later in the discussion by the FCC was completely against the argument for net neutrality and it was batted down by the original proponents such as myself on the FCC website. Keep in mind that THAT set of regulations actually did allow the ISPs to chop the internet up and that was wrong. That sort of regulation shouldn't be allowed the same as the practice itself of laying claim to the open world created by millions of independent people called the internet. That's what the ISP are trying to do. The cable tv business is drying up so they are going to try to make the internet into the next cable model- if you want access to these sites, pay this amount, if you want access to these , then pay this. That is NOT how the internet was envisioned when clever individuals used an existing infrastructure to send information. The ISPs just happened to be there, they didn't make the internet

I don't need to give you ten examples Selene because the phrase government regulation is not being used in the same way as you are making it out to be. This would not be government telling companies what to do or providing check lists or impact studies or taking fees. This is government merely saying "keep the model that you already have. The model that works." That's it. That's all this is about. The commerce and advancement that works over the internet has been nurtured by a specific (open and free to all comers) environment. The government says "keep it open and free".

I take this subject personally so please pardon my blunt language... You guys are INSANE You simply hear the phrase government regulation and immediately its bad. For me this has nothing to do with government. I don't care if net neutrality is maintained by the FCC or the CCCP. Hell, it could be maintained by the Girl Scouts. You guys keep talking about fast lanes. The fight over net neutrality is NOT about fast lanes, its about throttling. And before you even try to say that throttling is a scare tactic brought up by those like me, don't forget when I did my rant on the subject (here in the living room- Ill have to link later) not only did I provide several examples or where ISP's have ALREADY throttled web sites whose services are in competition with their own but I also provided a direct quote from an ISP spokesperson who explicated stated that they seek to be able to control/modulate/end the connection to any site for any reasons what so ever. In your opinion it must be fair then that a mall owner, in a personal dispute with one of his tenants- who pays rent upfront and on time, decides to build a barricade in front of the shops entrance, or put security guards there who only allow one customer in per hour. Or maybe that mall owner notices that one particular tenant is doing rather well, so he says either you now pay us double the agreed upon rent or I'll disrupt your business. Would that be the right of the mall owner? I know what you are going to say, "well the mall owner would then lose out because the shop would move some place else" WELL WHERE IS AN INTERNET COMPANY GOING TO MOVE????!!! They can't simply tell the ISP "If you are going to act like that, I'm out of here." AND the customer (me) can't tell the ISP that either because as you very well know most ISPs are local monopolies, I for example (and I live in a mid-tier city) have the option of either Comcast, Satellite or dial up. And those last two are hardly options. This is a street gang shake down and you guys are applauding the mob bosses for racketeering. Lets not forget that all these billions that ISPs were supposed to have spent for infrastructure, much of it was provided by the same tax payers (through the same government intervention that made them monopolies in the first place) who they now plan to screw over I return to my example I used in my previous rant. Should the government, who built the road system, be able to tell UPS who they can and can't do business with, at what times, and for how long? No! If the government want to charge a toll for use on its roads, fine, that's what you can do with your property, but you cant say "Pay the toll and you can go 60 miles an hour except if you are picking up merchandise from the Land's End or Macy's distribution centers. For those two, you can only drive 10 miles an hour. Why? Because they offer products which compete with mine and I got kids to feed man!" Maybe its because you guys are older than me and you don't have the same connection to the internet that the younger generations do ....... I don't know, but you guys just don't see the impact that this will have on the future... Oh, and since I said something about the future, before someone says the ISPs need this money to increase speeds for the future NO! NO! NO they don't. Comcast themselves has already shown that the CURRENT system can handle many many many times the speed and traffic as they allow through. I'll provide links when I get home but I think it was like 300 mbs per second and that's over copper. Last year, it was shown that fiber optics (Im looking at you Verizon- who refuses to build in Baltimore might I add) can do over a TERABIT per second! So take all that infrastructure improvements and shove them!

But I appreciate that you specifically used the term "given" rights. And rights being codified by government in order to maintain society and allow for advance

What I'm saying Brant, it that there appears to be no philosophical, intrinsic, inherent basis for human property rights either except that it helps human society. That's fine, I can accept that. The problem occurs when (and I mean in general, not just this discussion about property rights) you give a reason why one group should have certain rights and yet those same reasons apply to other groups, then when presented with that information you just come up with some other excuse. This was the case with the "all men were made equal" statements which then didn't apply to women or African Americans or the Irish or whatever. It's better if you simply say from the beginning, this group is superior/has certain rights merely because we say they do AND the fact that you (the opposition) can't do anything about it

I'm not. his first statement was "it's working" we have bigger and better and more everyday. He failed to mention that currently we have net neutrality. It's working BECAUSE we have it. It doesn't matter if it is enforced by government or the market, the point is net neutrality is good so let's preserve it

I had a recent debate with someone YouTube as to the nature of property rights. I used debate in italics because they were using the most easily brushed aside arguments that I have ever heard. To show that their points had no basis I (almost as a joke) compared human property rights to animals lack of property rights. But the more I think about it...... why don't animals have property rights? If I am entitled to something, as my property, because I made it then what about beavers? If humans are entitled to property because they need shelter and they create the shelter to suit those natural needs, then what about termites whose African mounds and at least as tall as man's skyscrapers relative to their size? If humans are entitled to property because there is an element of time in the creation of something as well as labor (farming) what about leaf cutter ants? If humans are entitled because they use a creative mind to decorate and appreciate what they have, what about the Bower bird? If humans are entitled because they put effort into to protecting what they consider to be theirs, even going to war over land, what about wolves and bears and all the other animals, singular and grouped who kill over territory? If human's are entitled because they can conceptually see the future value in collecting and holding onto something, what about squirrels? Then we get into the more direct issues. If I give you, my friend, a iPhone, I have transferred ownership to you. You now own it and can do whatever you want with it. But when we give a toy to a dog, we and then we find the toy lying unused in a corner, we are somehow able to just throw it away. If I walked into your apt and noticed that you weren't using the iPhone, could i take it back and throw it away? This is like a master slave relationship where whatever the slave owns is really owned by the master and he is free to do as he likes with it Then there are bees. They make their homes and they make a product (for themselves) and we directly reach in and take it. Does that make any sense from the standpoint of inherent property rights? I wonder though if the bee thing is easily wrapped up in capitalism though since bee keepers provide the capital structure (the boxes the bees build in) therefore all production which comes out of the worker is owned by the company Seems to me that the reason why animals don't have property rights is simply because we don't want them to as it would complicate/impact our own rights. Or maybe WE don't have inherent property rights either (which I personally don't believe-over nature, and that is what the argument was about), we simply assert that we do. p.s. I also do not believe that language is needed to think. I have actually been looking forward to the day when we all have brain chips connecting us to the internet because.... while it may start off as a direct connection to information, it would also be a connection to each other. We would be about to communicate telepathically and I think that language would then fall by the way side. If I can send you emotions and images directly, then you can understand exactly what I want and why without words or even static concepts. I find it hard to say that emotions could be said to be a language as different people surely experience them differently and the images and memories that you would send to accompany the emotions wouldn't be considered a language either because I can use the same image and it can mean any number of things based on my personally memories or feelings. But you would still get the translation because I would put you in my point of view directly. Language as a communication is used to bridge the gaps and bring some understanding between to minds who are feeling differing things and can't directly impart those feeling. This system would fix that and it would be so much faster and more accurate than language now.

I just listened to the environmentalist portion of this and the speaker said that the rational man was put here to adapt the world around him, it is in his nature