EdEarl

3 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Perhaps you haven't noticed but the US has immigration laws.  It appears that you don't like these laws and don't believe that these laws should be enforced.  It seems that you believe that any person who steps foot in the US should automatically be a  citizen with all rights afforded a US citizen included voting.  I'm sure you feel that if a person bought a candy bar at convenience store he paid taxes so all that person need is to keep the receipt so now that person is a citizen    Perhaps you should read the 14th amendment.  Why bother however? You will just ignore the parts you don't like.  Maybe you should read Article VI of the constitution.  Yeah, I know you feel like you should be able to pick and choose only the things you like from that document as well.  

The predicament the Dreamers are in are the direct result of the criminal actions of their parents.  Explain to me how that is not true. That is child abuse.  It's no different than taking you child with you to rob a bank.  

Picking and choosing which law to enforce will lead to nothing but trouble.    How would you like it If I was the one doing the picking and choosing?  I on the other hand am a law abiding citizen who follows all the laws.  Even the ones I don't like.  Why not you?  

This is just BS.  Again we have laws.  Those laws need to be enforced.  Change them if you can but until you do they should be enforced.

Sleazeballs who break the law and hide out in Mexico should be returned to the US should be returned to the US for prosecution and punishment.  Their victims deserve justice. Why would any good person want anything less? 

First, the Dreamers are not Americans.  Second the US is not the welfare provider for the world.  This humanitarian crisis was caused by States not enforcing Federal law and the parents of Dreamers who brought their children here illegally.  What part of that don't you get?

So following our laws is stupid?  Not a life path I would recommend.  

So now on to recent news.

Trump says he wants to admit Dreamers and provide a path for them to become citizens.  Trump just was substantial immigration reform so we don't get into this situation again. In politics there is bargaining.  What are you willing to give Trump to get what you want on DACA?

Our country exists because the people in 1776 were being abused by the law of the crown.

Quote

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Laws are not necessarily ethical, and people who try to abuse people using the law should be stopped.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

And the question is focusing on a small fraction of the population of the world. Some places are not installing this infrastructure (the cost component — its very expensive to do that). There was no copper to replace with fiber, and fiber is not being installed.

There are currently several plans from solar airplanes to LEO satellites to make an internet for all. Full wave antennas will be shorter than 1.2 cm, which suggests that mobile internet access is possible to a swarm of LEO satellites. If this technology is developed, anyone could walk around with a VOIP telephone.

12 hours ago, Moontanman said:

 I would say there is only two possibilities, we expand or go extinct... or maybe both..  

I agree, except we will go extinct sooner or later; the fate of the Universe seems to assure our demise.

I'll give an opinion and some facts.

Blood is water and other things, but drops, flows, and splatters similar to water and other water based fluids. First, fluids are gases and liquids. I think you only meant to ask about liquids, because gasses don't act like blood (technical). Some oils, especially thin ones will drop similar to blood on some surfaces, but fall differently on water than blood. Moreover, thick oils, tars and waxes act much different than blood. I think that bounds your question a bit. I hope someone else will post.

Just now, Raider5678 said:

What did you mean you're not aware of any evidence that we should conquer the universe?

Are you suggesting that there could be evidence for such a thing?

Or?

No, it is more like a plea to anyone who reads this thread to post about their evidence, if anyone else has any. I cannot prove, but suspect there is no such evidence.

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

No, I wasn't asking for evidence.

I just have no idea what you meant by that statement, could you clarify?

I am confused about your misunderstanding. Can you tell me which parts of my statement you do not understand?

1 hour ago, Silvestru said:

Uhmm.... you have a point but I want to say if it's ethical to introduce ourselves in a new environment and "contaminate" it.

Like introducing feral pigs in Australia is causing problems (there are many examples of such cases). If OP's fictional planet  "perfect for and compatible with earth life"  it might already has some sort of life. 

One day, our galaxy will consist of stars and remnants from our local group of galaxies, which will be the entirety of the Visible Universe. All other galaxies will be receding faster than the speed of light, so invisible. If man survives until this time, we will certainly inhabit other stars, for old Sol will be too dim to be of much use or wrecked by a collision. The survival of humanity may not be an ethical concern in this context; however, it is my opinion that wishing human extinction is objectionable. Thus, I recommend inhabiting other Stars. However we can always make Dyson swarms and avoid planetary pollution.

13 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

" I don't know of any evidence that says we should conquer the Universe; however, we are a species who like to conquer."

 

I was just asking what you meant by that.

I don't have any evidence. Are you asking about the nature of evidence? If so, that's a topic for another thread, and probably already exists.

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Evidence that says we should conquer the universe?

What evidence?

Since the probability of mass extinction on Earth looms a real possibility in the not too distant future, I'd say it is essential to move a few people to another place, a safe haven. How about moving a million to Mars with technology to populate the Solar system with a Dyson swarm in case Earth is uninhabitable for a while. AI, 3D printing, and robots are key technologies. ATM it would take perhaps 100,000 years to get to Alpha Centauri, which is so long the probability of travelers getting to their destination is questionable. It would be easier to put that ship in orbit around the Sun and let them live there, i.e., start the Dyson Swarm. However, we should protect humanity when the Sun finally dies, but that is a long time into the future.

I think this question is essentially, should we colonize as much of the universe as possible, or should we allow abiogenesis to work wherever it will and be content with watching the Universe do its thing. I don't know of any evidence that says we should conquer the Universe; however, we are a species who like to conquer.

7 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Just a current example of the electorate gradually giving away their power to influence in exchange  for an autocratic, undemocratic style of government.

Many are duped by lies (propaganda).

I can partly understand why they resist climate change, but have difficult understanding why they are willing to take the chance of mass extinction and the human race. Do they really think lots of money will save them.

Once the two parties offered different things. Today they are all puppets with the same masters. It's all political theater.

Quote

http://www.ml4aad.org/automl/

Machine learning (ML) has achieved considerable successes in recent years and an ever-growing number of disciplines rely on it. However, this success crucially relies on human machine learning experts to perform the following tasks:

• Preprocess the data
• Select appropriate features
• Select an appropriate model family
• Optimize model hyperparameters
• Postprocess machine learning models
• Critically analyze the results obtained.

As the complexity of these tasks is often beyond non-ML-experts, the rapid growth of machine learning applications has created a demand for off-the-shelf machine learning methods that can be used easily and without expert knowledge. We call the resulting research area that targets progressive automation of machine learning AutoML.
Although it focuses on end users without expert ML knowledge, AutoML also offers new tools to machine learning experts, for example to:

• Perform architecture search over deep representations
• Analyse the importance of hyperparameters.

Following the paradigm of Programming by Optimization, AutoML advocates the development of flexible software packages that can be instantiated automatically in a data-driven way.

AutoML is the first AI automation tool that I've heard of; although, there may be others.

Previously, before the current AI epoch, Computer Aided Engineering and Design systems of various types were sold. However, few were a commercial success. The AutoML team seems to have a good technique, since they are integrating AI into the system they are designing and putting AI into the systems it produces. Any time they can save developing will be used for other things. In the limit, an AI will be able to do anything a human can. At this time this tool falls short of that goal, but I believe they will continue to improve AutoML and perhaps build other related tools.

Their design with data driven software packages means an AI could be composed of a million packages, in which case programming personnel cost would be too much unless tools can significantly reduce the workload. The important part of the human job is to lend insight and direction to the less than genus AI tools.

AI developers have an eye on the Singularity as if it were the last Nobel Prize. I think they are on the right path, and that they will succeed within 10-15 years.

13 minutes ago, Sensei said:

But we're talking about couple different models:

1) robots produce everything, and result of their work is given for free, owners of robots don't get richer, (jump to 3c' or 3c'')

2) robots produce everything, and result of their work is sold, owners of robots get richer, unemployed are becoming poorer

3) robots produce everything, and result of their work is sold, tax on robot exists (buyers of goods pay it actually), government takes the money and:

3a) waste it, as usual

3b) spend it more wisely, unusual and probably not possible to sustain in long term (often changing politicians, unexpected events like crisis, disasters).

3c) give it away as basic income, and:

3c') people without having to work, will degenerate

3c'') people without having to work, will spend their entire life wisely, learning and becoming more and more smart and intelligent, will be discovering world and Universe

 

If there will be 3c, politician who will promise the largest basic income will win election, in society which is full of fools (and cause inflation).

 

..I could go on, and on, and on, each of these paths further extending what can happen as a result..

 

I didn't see: AI is smarter than us, so they take over politics and business, and run everything as they see fit. Anyone who opposes robot rule will be taken care of.

We'll see.

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

What robots can do and a zero cost economy are separate things. Yes, robots will eventually be able to do any a human can do. That said humans can do anything humans can do and yet we humans are still very particular about which humans do what. As for a zero cost economy, though technically possible, I do not see it happening during our lifetime. Those who are empowered by the system we have will wage war to keep it.

 

What humans are capable of and have access to don't always drive our choices. Have AI and putting it is good use are very different things.

It won't take very sophisticated robots to displace 80% of the workforce. Amazon is automating order fulfillment. Fast food will be prepared and delivered by robot. The way food comes to us is likely to undergo a major evolution, while simplifying the process. The food industry will take longer to fully automate. Cell phones will be fitted with biosensors and medical apps. Lots of people can be replaced with less than conscious AI.

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

I don't agree with that at all. For starters what will be the point of having AI CEOs of companies if no one on the planet can afford the products those companies create? Not being able to imagine what jobs will look like in 20yrs doesn't mean there won't be any. Millions of people today work in jobs that didn't exist 20yrs ago. Innovation both creates new jobs and and makes old jobs obsolete. Over the last 25yrs or so over a billion people globally have been lifted out of extreme poverty. Automation and computers have not been detrimental. 

"but the world has lately been making extraordinary progress in lifting people out of extreme poverty. Between 1990 and 2010, their number fell by half as a share of the total population in developing countries, from 43% to 21%—a reduction of almost 1 billion people."

https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim

OK, it seems our dissonance is one of two things. You don't think robots will be capable of doing anything we can do and/or a zero cost economy doesn't make sense to you. Although, your reasons may run deeper.

IMO we have or nearly have a super computer big enough to run a conscious AI. If not, it won't be many years. Moreover, several groups developing conversational AI are continually improving their systems. I know one developer said that he thought he would make a conscious AI before 2030, which is not reliable info. On the other hand, there seems to be a lot of money being spent on AI. For grins, let's consider what it means.

The first AGI may run slow, in which case it may develop faster computer hardware, and compress years of advancements into months. The second AGI starts the design of a super robot to give the intelligence legs. That development is compressed in time, and another AGI starts working on resource manufacturing systems. More copies automate all factories, fields, mines, shipping, etc. And, soon robots will do everything, except where we do for ourselves.

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Women Rights and Civil Rights were real change and both were political. It is politicians that created Social Security and Medicare. Real change absolutely can be accomplished. In my opinion taking an apathetic view that it can't only aids and encourages those who don't want change in the first place. 

Yes most jobs that exist today will be gone decades from now. That has been the case  since onset of the industrial revolution. People use to make a good living walking around cities hand lighting street lamps. Protecting those jobs was hardly a good argument for not developing an electrical grid. The invention of the car put many carpenters who built stagecoach's for a living out of work.  

My grandmother was born in 1909 in Nebraska without running water or electricity. She passed away in 1996 in Berkeley CA. You reference expecting the impossible; she went from a time when flight didn't exist to actually using commercial flight herself several times. She went from huddling around a neighbors radio to hear world news to having 24hr cable TV news in her living. Every aspect of society as she knew changed during her lifetime. None of those changes happened overnight though. It was all incremental. The world is always changing in significant ways. China and India of today compared to just 50yrs ago are incredibility different. Just 30yrs ago Germany was separated into 2 nations by a wall. Today Germany is one of the strongest economic powers in the world. You say we can't be patient but I don't see how we can afford not to be. Watching the world change is like watching grass grow in that it is absolutely happening and at the maximum speed it can within a given environment and yet from moment to moment is undetectable. 

1 hour ago, EdEarl said:

That you think it essential to be patient seems unrealistic when 80% of people have no jobs, little or no food, clothing, shelter or medical care. There aren't enough jails to hold them. Asking such people to be patient is asking them to lay down and die. What do you think can be done to avoid this scenario?

There are no alternative jobs being created for most factory workers when they are replaced by a lights out operation. Don't worry, AI will replace CEOs, other executives, educators, maintenance, construction, etc., every job.

That you think it essential to be patient seems unrealistic when 80% of people have no jobs, little or no food, clothing, shelter or medical care. There aren't enough jails to hold them. Asking such people to be patient is asking them to lay down and die. What do you think can be done to avoid this scenario?

12 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I agree people should vote for real change but people also must be realistic about how much can change  at once. Obama was President for 8yrs and for 6 of those years had a combative Congress. I think Obama did about the best job he possibly could have all things considered but a lot of people, Sander supporters specifically, feel he was a disappointment. I have heard many progressives voice disappointment that Obama didn't accomplish X, Y, and Z. I think many of those people are delusional about what is possible in 8yrs. Back to my earlier point nothing resets when new people come to office. Obama became President in the middle of a depression. We were losing a half million jobs a money, foreclosures were at record highs, annual deficit was over 1.6 trillion, and we were fight 2 wars overseas. Obama had to address all that. Change is possible but it is also incremental. No President or Congress can get us from where we are today to an annual budget surplus in 4yrs. It would take 4yrs just to get our annual deficits to even freeze and another 4yrs after that to reverse. Obama is proof that the public doesn't reward success. We need to go several election cycles with consistent policies rather than the calls for massive change.  Obama managed to cut the annual deficit in half during his tenure. Currently it is already up 20% and rising under Trump. I stress the deficit because  without money the Govt can't afford to do anything. The sort of changes progressives are hoping for: single payer, free education, govt supported daycare, infrastructure spending, and etc have costly initial price tags that save money in the long term. Problem is that with power constantly swinging back and forth there is never a long term.

Separately Republicans have only won the popular vote once in the last 7 elections (28yrs) yet amazingly control every branch of govt. Having more parties to shake things up is a thought people mutually support but is the 2 party system really the problem? Republicans win 1 national vote out of 7 yet get to call all the shots? Rather than being apathetic towards the 2 major parties I think people should be extremely  pissed off  that their votes aren't respected. Let's strive to fix gerrymandering, voter suppression, and our electoral system. We do that first and I think the 2 parties become more responsive to what the majority of citizens actually want. We can talk about new parties but ultimately have what we have so we should strive to fix what we have rather than just pontificate about how nice it would be to have something else which doesn't exist.

It is unrealistic to think real change will wait for political change.

IMO The least time 80% of jobs will be eliminated by automation is 12 years. Even if it were 25 years, jobs will be gone before politics as usual can changes as you suggest. We must try to make political changes, but we cannot afford to be patient. It really is time to expect the impossible and hope better than usual is good enough. Clearly, the impossible is beyond our reach, but the usual is not enough.

54 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

There could be another 3 parties it doesn't erase the the multi trillion dollar annual debt we'll be faced with. Party aside to dig out of this whole a lot of very unpopular things will need to happen. We need large increases in taxes among wealthier citizens (by wealthy I don't strictly mean billionaires), massive changes to bank regulations to protect consumers, changes to capital gains taxes, corporate taxes, massive defense spending cuts, and etc. Doing those things will certainly have immediate (but short term) negative impacts on the economy. For example I think we all agree Defense spending needs to shrink. Military Defense jobs makes up over 10% of all manufacturing jobs in the country. The Defense industry employs 4 million people. Cuts to Defense spending will result in the loss of a lot of jobs and problem shrink national GDP for a couple years. I can't imagine any party being able to sell purposely creating a recession for the long term good.

44 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I think a lot of people wish we could hit a reset button; liberal and conservative alike. That makes 3rd parties appealing as they represent a new direction or fresh start. Reality is that a reset is impossible. Doesn't matter who we elect we already have the laws, agencies, debts, and etc we have. Businesses can go bankrupt, sell off sections, hire in new management and start over but our govt cannot. Whomever is elected into office (any elected office) has to directly take on the current state of affairs. It is an unbroken chain. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars didn't end just because Bush wasn't POTUS anymore. 

There is no button of course, people will have to endure whatever changes occur.

If people will not vote for real change, days of no jobs will be forced by automation. That will increase the pain to deadly levels, do you think people will endure the pain or riot? The current economic system will cannot continue indefinitely, a mass extinction seems to be in progress. We face an existential threat. The best alternative is for people to manage themselves and their political and economic processes to eliminate climate change and ill affects to the environment. What you are saying is man seems to be killing himself and much of the environment. I hope you are wrong and we can make the hard changes. 

13 hours ago, Strange said:

Firstly, I think it takes quite severe lifestyle or environmental factors to have any effect; things like growing up without sufficient nutrition (or too much). Things like a different choice of job won't have any effect. (Although I think extreme events like PTSD can have epigenetic effects.)

And although there is some evidence that some epigenetic effects can be passed on to offspring to some extent, as far as I know that only lasts for one or two generations.

If the conditions that cause an epigenetic change in a generation occur for multiple generations, does the probability of a related genetic change increase or change in any way.

Depends on pain and tolerance. At some point people riot and riots sometimes become revolutions. I hope things don't get that bad, but current policies seem to assure that end.

4 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Yeah, even if the Democrats take control of Congress in 2018 and win the White House in 2020 a lot of damage is already done. Deficits are climbing and raising taxes has proven to be impossible over the last 40yrs. We had Reagan's rounds of tax cuts, Bush's rounds of tax cuts, and now Trump's tax cut without any significant push in the opposite direction. I guess that is the GOP's long term plan; starve the beast. It is really hard to imagine Democrats successfully being able to negotiate any type of single payer healthcare system, free community college, govt assisted child daycare, or etc when it is running multi trillion dollar annual deficits. 

Time for another party.

I am concerned for the near future. So many things are being done with greedy intent, including the assaults on freedom of speech and reality of reporting.

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

 

My point was more about the seeming, miscomprehension (many examples on this site) about what evolution (biologically) is, which is perpetuated by the OP; a little too pedantic perhaps but this is in speculations, not the lounge.

Nature/evolution has found a solution, it put both eyes on the side of the head.

LOL Recently I've been learning about the Universe as an information processing entity. From that perspective we might consider the program causing these things. I'm not yet ready for that discussion; thus, will say no more about it here. Sorry for my blunder in this context.