Change a coming

[Azarkon]

1. Chinese growth is likely to come at a cost in the State's capacity to control itself. Many commentators think China is proving that autocracies are optimal capitalist systems, but rampant instability in the Chinese high capital markets suggests otherwise to me.

2. Chinese growth will be tied to information access. Will information speeds be mirrored by information control, or the reverse? This will be criticial to defining Chinese stability.

3. I agree that many nations are following China's autocratic 'potemkin' democracy model. However, if China shakes itself apart like a leprous bicyclist then what about those countries following it?

 

The problem with predicting anything about China is that there's no way to predict, based on only what we know now, how things will go after the Olympics. It's the reason I don't want to play political prophet - the chances of me getting it right are slim (and that applies to most people, though in any binary prediction, typically one side will be right, and the other side will be wrong, though they'll never admit it ) Chinese politics is one of those things that depends alot on the people running it. A whole spectrum of opinions exist in the decision-making body of the Communist Party, as you might expect - from liberal reformists to moderates to conservatives to Communist hardliners to Confucian scholars. Who gets the upper hand will depend completely on the success of the Olympics, and even then it's hard to predict who'll take the credit. I mean, right now you have the pro-reform Hu Jintao/Wen Jiabo dynamic duo at the helm, so presumably if the Olympics succeed the CCP will be more open to political reform. But then again, the Ministry of Propaganda and the Ministry of National Security are both dishing out some harsh regulations for the Olympics, so if it's a success they'll take credit, too. Then there's the matter of foreign protests/riots/terrorist attacks - if they happen, expect China's hardliners to take control. And of course, no one can predit what policies the CCP will implement after the Olympics are over and the drunken fervor of nationalism is replaced by a sober look at China's Big Problems (which are corruption, pollution, social security, and income disparity - not Tibet).

[Humodour]

Wlasingham re Africa: I point you to the rising life expectancy rates of Africa as well as the logistic growth model as a counterargument for HIV's exponential growth, let alone exponential growth of evolved resistance in humans. Of course, time frame is the hard to predict factor here. Other factors to consider are advances in contraception and anti-viral drugs. An Australian scientist recently invented a cream that prevented HIV transmission but allowed sperm transmission - If the Pope doesn't allow that I think it's time to start listening to the conspiracy theorists.

 

Also, my prediction is that China will either stagnate, settle down, or burst at the seams. India on the other hand is far more politically and socially stable, yet experiencing similar industrial, technological and economic shifts to China. I am far more confident in predicting India will be the 'emerging superpower' if there really needs to be one. Like Azarkon I don't place much faith in such predictions, though (my own or not).

Edited July 2, 2008 by Krezack

[Colrom]

From wiki on Strong AI:

 

"Modern AI research began in the middle 50s.[9] The first generation of AI researchers were convinced that strong AI was possible and that it would exist in just a few decades. As AI pioneer Herbert Simon wrote in 1965: "machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a man can do."[10] Their predictions were the inspiration for Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke's character HAL 9000, who accurately embodied what AI researchers believed they could create by the year 2001. Of note is the fact that AI pioneer Marvin Minsky was a consultant[11] on the project of making HAL 9000 as realistic as possible according to the consensus predictions of the time, having himself said on the subject in 1967, "Within a generation...the problem of creating 'artificial intelligence' will substantially be solved."[12]

 

However, in the early 70s, it became obvious that researchers had grossly underestimated the difficulty of the project. The agencies that funded AI became skeptical of strong AI and put researchers under increasing pressure to produce useful technology, or "applied AI".[13] As the eighties began, Japan's fifth generation computer project revived interest in strong AI, setting out a ten year timeline that included strong AI goals like "carry on a casual conversation".[14] In response to this and the success of expert systems, both industry and government pumped money back into the field.[15] However, the market for AI spectacularly collapsed in the late 80s and the goals of the fifth generation computer project were never fulfilled.[16] For the second time in 20 years, AI researchers who had predicted the imminent arrival of strong AI had been shown to be fundamentally mistaken about what they could accomplish."

 

By the 1990s, AI researchers had gained a reputation for making promises they could not keep. AI researchers became reluctant to make any kind of prediction at all[17] and avoid any mention of "human level" artificial intelligence, for fear of being labeled a "wild-eyed dreamer."[18] This is an unfortunate consequence of developing nascent technologies."

 

Never-the-less it seems increasingly clear that serious thinking robots are coming soon enough.

Edited July 3, 2008 by Colrom

[Colrom]

What would we have predicted for ten years in the future in 1935?

[Meshugger]

What would we have predicted for ten years in the future in 1935?

 

Certainly not love and peace. These fellows were in power: Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini and Franco.

[Dragon Lord Jones]

well according to the mayan calender (I think that's the one) the end of the world as we know it by 2012, giving us only 4 more years of fun and continued devastation wow i gotta start creating more debt to help destroy mankind.

Edited July 3, 2008 by Dragon Lord Jones

[random n00b]

What would we have predicted for ten years in the future in 1935?

 

Certainly not love and peace. These fellows were in power: Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini and Franco.

Hindsight FTW

[Azarkon]

Strong AI

 

I was painfully reminded of just how far we are from the achieving that dream while watching Wall-E, recently.

[Meshugger]

What would we have predicted for ten years in the future in 1935?

 

Certainly not love and peace. These fellows were in power: Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini and Franco.

Hindsight FTW

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Stop being serious.

 

Ofcourse there was positive talk of the red revolution in Russia, where the workers enjoyed their paradise on earth under the great visionary leader of Stalin. English nobility were envied of Hitler managing to rally and gather the german public and industry. The world were astounded by the high standard of living among the germans during the olympic games in Berlin in 1936. Mussolini united the Italians and restored common order, eradicated malaria from the adriatic sea and crushed down the cosa nostra.

 

There were even times of utter most delight when Chamberlain came back to London with a paper of Germany's peaceful takeover of the Sudet-area of Czechoslovakia, where he, the audience and the rest of the world, valiantly declared: "Peace in our times!".

 

 

I still trying to figure out a point of this post...

[random n00b]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Stop being serious.

You offend me good sir!

[Humodour]

[Walsingham]

The computer thing is very interesting. Oddly my Dad just got given one rather than the free phone. I hadn't considered the fact that a laptop might be cheaper!

 

Although I suppose that in this case the newest feature rich phones are more expensive than a cheap laptop.

 

Consequences if this becomes common? The rise of Linux? Or will Microevil take action?

[Humodour]

Walsingham: Slashdot (ya ya biased fanboys... really, it's pretty neutral as a whole) has good commentary on that issue.

 

Certainly, the release of Vista has seen gains for Linux and Mac. Nothing major, but still above average and, more importantly, consistent market share growth. Meanwhile Microsoft is resisting open source with all its might but they do seem to acknowledge the inevitable shift from selling programming to selling consultancy and support. Once Balmer and Gates fall out of the picture more, I imagine we'll see a significant shift in Microsoft as its other heads are far less hostile to open source.

 

It'll be interesting to see how their plans to shift Office sales from once-off to pay-per-year affect the rise of things like the free OpenOffice competitor (which is actually surprisingly good, at least the word processor). I think it's a smart move for them, because it gives them a consistent income source and is justifiable through consultancy provided. I think Vista's below expected performance spurred such a move as they realised they can't keep selling the same product with little variation to a saturated market - especially not in the wake of free alternatives which only ever improve. On the other hand people will pay for the guarantee of professional consultancy.

 

Meanwhile Firefox looks set to become the dominant Browser some time soon (but moreover it has set a precedent in that any new innovation in this area must be free and most likely open source).

 

Edit: Meanwhile Google has, fortunately, maintained its strong open source and "don't be evil attitude". Sure, it's had some ****-ups, and made some questionable decisions, but at its heart it is an open source bastion in what's expected to be an uncaring corporate world, and there's little sign this will change much in the years to come. We have far more to fear from the entertainment industry.

Edited July 4, 2008 by Krezack

[random n00b]

Certainly, the release of Vista has seen gains for Linux and Mac. Nothing major, but still above average and, more importantly, consistent market share growth. Meanwhile Microsoft is resisting open source with all its might but they do seem to acknowledge the inevitable shift from selling programming to selling consultancy and support. Once Balmer and Gates fall out of the picture more, I imagine we'll see a significant shift in Microsoft as its other heads are far less hostile to open source.

That's interesting. I'm not sure if that can be so clearly established as the cause for the gains of Linux, however. Mac, I'm not really up to date to comment.

[random n00b]

We have far more to fear from the entertainment industry

Wow, I hadn't read that at first.

 

Anyway, in this case it's not only the industry being greedy that pisses me off, that's to be expected. It's the mindboggling decisions made by jurists.

 

"Viacom also requested YouTube's source code, the code for identifying repeat copyright infringement uploads, copies of all videos marked private, and Google's advertising database schema."

 

It was denied. But I think there's something definitely wrong with a system that allows them to request to violate privacy in such a scale and in a systematic manner. That's the kind of thing that encourages me to download stuff illegally, even if I have no intention of watching/playing/listening to it. Great job.

Edited July 4, 2008 by random n00b

[Walsingham]

Well, that's a function of being an attack lawyer. You don't get paid to consider the bigger picture, so you don't.

 

Speaking of which does anyone see any likelihood of changes in corporate governance/management coming? Or are we going to stay stuck with the same old 'weasels first' system we have now?

[Rosbjerg]

In Norway they've started a system where they are forcing companies to hire female board members and CEOs. I don't know the legal works behind it, I'm sure one of our Norwegian friends could enlighten us, but I think that's an interesting (albeit a bit drastic) attempt to force equality.

[Atreides]

High oil prices is finally changing the way Americans think about energy - which is good. Conservation and more funding for tech research into alternates which is awesome because the USA is still mofo at research.

 

The US comes up with funky ideas which China will copy pasta illegally and produce for profit.

[Rosbjerg]

My brother was working as an industrial designer at a Danish research center devoted to alternative energies.

 

He helped design the first hydrogen gas stations in Denmark which will start being build this year and the goverment has approved that public vehicles in a number of towns will be hydrogen fueled when they are operational.

 

The company is also close to perfecting hydrogen stored in dried tablets, which will be used as fuel.

 

A very viable alternative energy source for transportation according to the people working there.

[Humodour]

Hydrogen isn't an energy source, really. It's also a volatile energy storage medium, too (but as you said, people are working very well to nullify that con).

 

The benefit is that the fuel is plentiful (water) and the input energy plentiful (sun), and the output non-polluting (water).

 

It actually takes a large energy investment to make hydrogen from water, so only places where you already have excess energy are viable (e.g. lots of geothermal energy in Iceland, or wind power, or solar power, etc). It's a fuel in the sense that we can convert all the various solar sources into it for use in mobile units.

 

On the other hand, homes and industry will remain on-grid. Hydrogen will not really be used here unless electricity storage is required in off-peak times or something. Why? Because all the various solar energy sources are already hooked up to the grid just fine, like with fossil fuels.

[Walsingham]

In Norway they've started a system where they are forcing companies to hire female board members and CEOs. I don't know the legal works behind it, I'm sure one of our Norwegian friends could enlighten us, but I think that's an interesting (albeit a bit drastic) attempt to force equality.

 

Don't you think there's alikely to be a lot of resistance to that being used elsewhere? We already discussed this a few months back and I think the consensus was that it was varying degrees of bad.

[Rosbjerg]

you know, I totally forgot about that

 

but yes, of course this would create alot of resistance, even from women imho - since forcing equality doesn't equal equality.

[Humodour]

Don't you think there's alikely to be a lot of resistance to that being used elsewhere? We already discussed this a few months back and I think the consensus was that it was varying degrees of bad.

 

Would you mind digging that thread up? I have an interest in alternate energy 'cause I studied it a bit in some of my courses at uni.

 

For all intents and purposes, the use of hydrogen as a storage method seems inevitable, so I'm confused how it could be agreed to be "varying degrees of bad". I'm especially befuddled because many of the major car manufacturers and oil companies are pushing it (I think it's BMW or Mercedes-Benz that plans to completely phase in hydrogen for all its cars by 2015), so I don't see how people have a choice, nor how they conceive it would be a bad decision economically (maybe fossil fuels will never run out?).

 

Edit: Oh bugger me, I thought you were talking about hydrogen.

Edited July 9, 2008 by Krezack

[Walsingham]

you know, I totally forgot about that

 

but yes, of course this would create alot of resistance, even from women imho - since forcing equality doesn't equal equality.

 

I thought it was wrong for two reasons:

 

1. It will mean forcing women who are not up to standard on companies

2. That in turn will actually move backwards AWAY from acceptance of female competence.