Zeitgeist

[Rosbjerg]

The computer is not connected to the internet at all, its only allowed to use its on-board knowledge. The brilliant thing behind it is the fact that it is given the question in the same form the humans are and must figure out the question, buzz in using a mehanical arm, and answer in the proper format. The rules are exactly the same for Watson as they are for the humans.

 

Also decide it's chances when it must wager.. it's quite an impressive feat and it goes to show how far computers are now and just how far they may still come in the next few decades.

[Wrath of Dagon]

The computer is not connected to the internet at all, its only allowed to use its on-board knowledge. The brilliant thing behind it is the fact that it is given the question in the same form the humans are and must figure out the question, buzz in using a mehanical arm, and answer in the proper format. The rules are exactly the same for Watson as they are for the humans.

The only hard part about all that is remembering and retrieving information, which is something computers are very good at. Unless there's an example of a particularly tricky question it figured out, I'm not impressed.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I guess this does sound promising:

Siegel says Watson could prove valuable one day in helping diagnose patients by scouring journals and other medical literature that physicians often don't have time to keep up with.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110217/ap_on_...he_medical_ward

 

That is if it can actually "understand" the information it reads.

[Rosbjerg]

I think this is pretty telling.. The world (yeah that's right) is currently in a 12 trillion dollar debt.. We are spending so much on bonuses and interest rates while on

[Walsingham]

Sorry, but how the feth can the World be in debt? Who do we owe the money to? Mars?

[Rosbjerg]

Sorry, but how the feth can the World be in debt? Who do we owe the money to? Mars?

 

I know, it's quite absurd.. a little

humour attacking it.

 

But basically it's becaue the current system of creating money, which is based off debt.. most pure liberals attack it, most communist attack it - well most anyone except bankers and financiers attack it.. But basically the various nations have to borrow from their (privately owned) nation bank, which puts an interest on the money it creates/prints. Bascially due to the fractional reserve system a bank my create money on a ratio that differs from country to country - but I believe it's about 1:9 in average.. so let's say I take a loan of 10.000 dollars and deposit it, then the bank may loan out 9.000 dollars from these 10.000 .. and the 9.000 may become 8.100 etc etc.. the problem here of course is that only the principal is created (out of nothing) but the interest is still required and thus debt is created out of creating money. But since I have to pay back the loan given what is in the available money supply and this supply is "pumped" with debt created money it gets impossible in theory to repay all debt.

 

It's more technical, but I'm still learning about it - so far I'm very disgusted..

[Walsingham]

I'm no revolutionary. But I don't think it's in any way revolutionary to suggest that it's time we did unto the bankers what our ancestors did unto the Templars, for more or less the same reasons. Bit of the old fire and sword.

[Rosbjerg]

Yeah, most diehard libertarians want to back to the gold standard or at least get away from the fractional reserve and fiat system..

 

I'm a bit torn, I think I support The Venus projects ideas - they seem the most logical to me, as I don' trust the free market. I think any system that promotes greed and profit over renewability is dooming this planet's capacity to support us.

[Orogun01]

Yeah, most diehard libertarians want to back to the gold standard or at least get away from the fractional reserve and fiat system..

 

I'm a bit torn, I think I support The Venus projects ideas - they seem the most logical to me, as I don' trust the free market. I think any system that promotes greed and profit over renewability is dooming this planet's capacity to support us.

While I may not agree with the free market, I think that a government regulated free market would be the best system. The system has been set for thousands of years, in order to set a new one you would need either complete agreement between countries or another British empire. So far the Venus project ideas seem a little flimsy.

[Rosbjerg]

Yeah, most diehard libertarians want to back to the gold standard or at least get away from the fractional reserve and fiat system..

 

I'm a bit torn, I think I support The Venus projects ideas - they seem the most logical to me, as I don' trust the free market. I think any system that promotes greed and profit over renewability is dooming this planet's capacity to support us.

While I may not agree with the free market, I think that a government regulated free market would be the best system. The system has been set for thousands of years, in order to set a new one you would need either complete agreement between countries or another British empire. So far the Venus project ideas seem a little flimsy.

 

The problem being of course that a government is just a s susceptible to money corruption as corporation.. Betting rid of this debt would be a very good start and an egalitarian society (even based on money) is a lot less likely to succumb to corruption. So I try to be as open about it as possible, but this current situation has to change. I'd support a bigger government if that's the only viable alternative.

[Walsingham]

No offence, Rosbif, but you need to get your feet back on the floor. I'm in favour of stomping the mega banks because I accept the concept of regulation as an inherent wquality of all benevolent systems. But if you reckon you can replace a greed/pride driven system and keep the humans then you're stone mental.

 

To use an analogy, I want to surf the wave in a healthy fashion. You want to destroy the wave and replace it with a souffle.

 

EDIT: On reflection this is a terrible analogy, but a great image.

Edited February 18, 2011 by Walsingham

[213374U]

egalitarian society

Does not compute.

 

All previous attempts to create such a thing have failed, the more catastrophically the bigger the government - the chief product of such things being usually megadeaths. I'm opposed on principle to what is, basically, a grand social engineering project engendered by wishful thinking. The same kind of wishful thinking that disregards real problems that current social science hasn't found a solution to, like the potential for free riders to destroy the viability of many of those proposed systems.

 

Of course, megadeaths may very well be the inevitable result of and solution to the sustainability problem of limited resources vs unlimited population expansion. But somehow, I doubt this is the advertised outcome.

 

edit: do I suck? or do I suck?!

Edited February 18, 2011 by 213374U

[Rosbjerg]

I'm not about to overthrow world order - don't worry.. I'm just looking at society and trying to figure out how it can be fixed - preferably without resorting to planned economics, because I do know my history..

 

However, by egalitarian I didn't mean 100% equal - I simply meant more equal than now. 1% having 40% is unsustainable.

 

But if you reckon you can replace a greed/pride driven system and keep the humans then you're stone mental.

 

I have to say I find that pretty cynical .. I believe greed and it's counterpart altruism are both a product of conditions and something you could avoid given the right circumstances. Our culture promotes selfishness and individualism, because we believe that these things pushes us to flourish and helps us do our best - and in many cases it does, but I don't believe it to be part of "human nature" - it is simply a product of stimuli, much like everything else. And much like anything else, too much of it makes a bad ingredient.

[Orogun01]

Yeah, most diehard libertarians want to back to the gold standard or at least get away from the fractional reserve and fiat system..

 

I'm a bit torn, I think I support The Venus projects ideas - they seem the most logical to me, as I don' trust the free market. I think any system that promotes greed and profit over renewability is dooming this planet's capacity to support us.

While I may not agree with the free market, I think that a government regulated free market would be the best system. The system has been set for thousands of years, in order to set a new one you would need either complete agreement between countries or another British empire. So far the Venus project ideas seem a little flimsy.

 

The problem being of course that a government is just a s susceptible to money corruption as corporation.. Betting rid of this debt would be a very good start and an egalitarian society (even based on money) is a lot less likely to succumb to corruption. So I try to be as open about it as possible, but this current situation has to change. I'd support a bigger government if that's the only viable alternative.

I'm all open for alternative solutions or reforms to the current system, the problem with the alternative that the Venus Project suggest is resource based. They don't seem to have all the kinks work out on it yet, the problem is that a resource based system; as opposed to the current "scarcity" based system, is still a scarcity based system only in the reverse. Resources do become scarce and some are non renewable.

Men are corruptible but a least they are flexible, nature on the other hand can't be reasoned with or bended.

[bigcrazewolf]

I'm no revolutionary. But I don't think it's in any way revolutionary to suggest that it's time we did unto the bankers what our ancestors did unto the Templars, for more or less the same reasons. Bit of the old fire and sword.

I really like this idea.....it's also why I use a credit union (non-profit)

 

And as for the Jeopardy computer, I can beat him too, all it takes is a properly written program (virus that is)

[Rosbjerg]

sooo

is really watching the Fed? that's nice..

[Wrath of Dagon]

Having a supply of paper money that expands at the same rate as the economy is a reasonable idea and should work perfectly well in theory. The problem is for some reason the Fed thinks they're a Soviet five year economic planning commissariat.

[Walsingham]

Having a supply of paper money that expands at the same rate as the economy is a reasonable idea and should work perfectly well in theory. The problem is for some reason the Fed thinks they're a Soviet five year economic planning commissariat.

 

LoF refuses to tell us what his job is! What if he's in charge of the Fed!?

[Rosbjerg]

would make sense.

[Walsingham]

Does this mean I've finally got an excuse to march on the Federal Reserve, with an angry mob holding torches?

[Ted 'MFing' Cruz]

Never watched them myself. Though my conspiracy theorist of a cousin has. He says there's some pretty eye opening things in there, scary ones to boot.