Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - P3nT4gR4m

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 575
1
Aneristic Illusions / Re: Random News Stories
« on: Yesterday at 04:13:33 pm »
I think the guy's fucking inspirational. He exposes the lie that is Justice. On trial for bribery? No worries - bribe the court. I'm innocent of anything I can get away with. Anyone who thinks the system can be fixed, think again. It can only be played.

2
Aneristic Illusions / Re: Duh Rugs
« on: Yesterday at 04:03:51 pm »
Don't diss the DEA, they're protecting our most valuable assets  :argh!:

3
Or Kill Me / Re: I Forgot Why I Wrote this
« on: Yesterday at 04:01:02 pm »
Fucking YES with a capital everything!

4
Aneristic Illusions / Re: Random News Stories
« on: August 21, 2014, 10:32:09 am »
Dude, I'll kick in 20 fucking K if you can offer even 10% ROI and a Doge mention on national news  :evil:

5
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Laws
« on: August 21, 2014, 10:20:19 am »
On the plus side, it's not just the cops who can cover themselves in cameras. Pretty soon we'll all be walking around in a cloud of personal drones. The balance of surveillance power swings back and forward but it's nearer the middle now than it's ever been. The bad guys will begin deploying EMP's in riot zones to try and combat this. Someone will start selling cheap Faraday-cage phone cases on ebay to get around it.

The government used to have a comms and tech advantage. That's gone. Playing field is leveled. I've been thinking a lot about what the word "Terrorism" currently means, after years of systematic abuse by the thought police. Best definition I can come up with is "enemy combatant who we can't defeat using our traditional strategy of overwhelming military force"

When tanks and guns aren't effective weapons anymore, all they're left with is information systems. Good luck winning that war would be oppressors - you're outmanned and outgunned. "Cyberterrorists" will win the info-wars and hopefully that will be the end of centralised government.

6
Aneristic Illusions / Re: Random News Stories
« on: August 19, 2014, 09:51:32 am »
Point. Like most things I do, I hadn't thought it through. Forgot about the tale of the boy who spewed wolf  :oops:

7
The burden of proof isn't on the atheists, what makes you think it is?

The way I always saw the atheist debate was like, say there's an established law that women should get slapped around or whatever and it's a theocratic thing - "it says in the book of kenny, ch1 v2 - for he that raiseth his hand to his bitch must surely be a servant of the lord" and the atheists are all like, "That's fucking retarded. Stop believing in fairy tales you complete dicks!"

And the believers turn around and say "You can't prove it's a fairy tale. Ruling stands."

While it may be true that a load of atheists hate the fact that humans are allowed to believe retarded shit, I think a lot of it is down to the fact that much of that retarded stuff affects them, personally by way of stupid laws that govern what they can and can't do. I think this is becoming less of a problem on aggregate as rational secularism generally prevails but you don't have to look far to the fringes to see that there's still some seriously fucked up shit happening because god.

8
Pretty sure the federal autopsy didn't put the text on there. If it could only happen with arms up then how come you can see it on an anatomically accurate diagram?

9
So here's something that I'm wondering about. It applies to the athiests v's theists debate but it can arise in other situations. It's about this burden of proof thing.

The atheist's position is invalid because they can't prove there's no god, right? I can't help thinking that this clause is subject to abuse.

Staying away from the larger metaphysical question of whether there's some kind of creator or emergent consciousness, within or beyond the universe and sticking to the narrow, orthodox christian theory that planet earth was created a couple of thousand years ago by Cartman from Southpark, why is there a burden of proof necessary? Surely when a theory is so blatantly ridiculous, one is intellectually allowed to dismiss it as so, without having to provide evidence?

Is it something to do with the number of people who do believe the theory?

Here's a theory - earths gravity is a function of the existence of human pinkie fingers. If we were to remove all the pinkie fingers from every man, woman and child on the planet, we'd collectively be able to fly. It's highly unlikely that anyone could ever provide hard evidence this theory is false, but, lets face it, it's pretty fucking ridiculous. Say maybe only half a dozen people believe it. We'd dismiss it out of hand, surely? Or would we be required, to maintain intellectual honesty, to accept it as a possible hypothesis?

What if one and a half billion people believed it? Does this change how ridiculous it is? And, if so, why? The bible is a series of stories about talking snakes and people with magical powers and shit. Sure I can't actually prove it never happened but I'd be prepared to bet anything and everything I could raise as a stake.

I'm thinking the ability to dismiss the ridiculous is inversely proportional to the number of people who believe it?

I think that this frustrates the hell out of atheists and I could kind of sympathise if it wasn't so fucking funny.

10
Aneristic Illusions / Re: Random News Stories
« on: August 18, 2014, 11:05:01 am »
totally innocent question - what's the best way to fake the symptoms?

11
Aneristic Illusions / Re: Random News Stories
« on: August 18, 2014, 10:48:51 am »
Troof. The thought of Liberia spreading is a thousand times scarier than Ebola

12
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Laws
« on: August 16, 2014, 10:48:03 pm »
I'm looking at the end result - total 100% transparency. The problems come in the interim. Anything less than 100%, even by half of a half of 1%, creates a nightmare oligarchy of centralised power. The road to that last % may be long and arduous. Billions may die or become fucked over to the point most of them will wish they were dead. What I think is worth exploring at this point in history, is ways to force engineer that last %, as and when it becomes necessary.

I'm not arguing for or against total transparency. There's no point. It's coming whether you think this is a good thing or a bad thing. Until we hit 100% it has the potential to become progressively worse. Near term I'm not optimistic, based on the current state of humanity in general. It's a big change. Humanity needs to change dramatically to accommodate. Humanity, y'know - 7-odd billion retarded primates who fear nothing more than change. :kingmeh:

13
Whoa! I thought that was proper Glasgow cuisine for a second there, til I realised it was just pasta and cheese and shit  :argh!:

14
Hey, y'all know I'm a massive fan of substrate transfer but that's a long-term solution. Short term we progressively dilute the control exerted by the base systems. We already do that. As I said - neocortex already runs a lot of overrides. Reptile wants to kill, reptile wants to fuck, reptile wants to eat. Neocortex says "NOPE!"

Short term (compared to uploading at least) we add layers of logic computation on top of the neocortex. The Exocortex. We already have this but it's a bit fragmented. The internet. Even before that we had books. Progressive interface integration will bring the exocortex into direct connection. The bridged-exocortex. At this point the sky is the limit. At some point our bridged-exocortex will match neocortex performance. Our higher level-consciousness will be exactly twice as powerful. Two years after that three times, two years after that 5 times and so on. Meanwhile the reptile lumbers on.

Even without the exocortex, we are currently capable of running rings around the reptile, however, because of the way our mental systems are stacked and integrated it takes a fair bit of effort. It's shadow-boxing. Wrestling with oneself. Our race achieves varying levels of success in this endeavour. With the exocortex, however, control mechanisms will be downloadable from the app-store.

15
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Laws
« on: August 16, 2014, 07:59:10 am »
Laws need optimised. Stripped down to the bare essentials. Don't kill. Don't steal. Don't lie. We are rapidly approaching a situation where we can prevent these things. Deal with them before, not after they happen. Minority report? Yup, it's less than a decade away. It won't work quite the same way as it does in the movie - psychic mutants plugged into the internet but the net effect will be the same. The annihilation of privacy (trust me - you really will appreciate it when you see it) via ubiquitous micro (later nano) -scale sensors will know when something's about to go down. Drones will intervene to prevent the crime taking place faster than the human can carry it out.

The current mountain of ridiculous legislation won't work. You're absolutely right - everyone would end up in jail. We'll have to dump them and go back to basics. So I can almost hear the grinding of teeth from the Orwell followers reading this. The abuse. The human rights violations. Right? Wrong. What will happen in a totally transparent society is that there will be no place for Big Brother. Everyone can see through him, just like he can see through everyone. People can spy on you taking a shit or jacking off to tubgirl videos but guess what - you can see them spying on you and so can all their friends.

What's going to happen is people are going to be forced to become a lot more tolerant. People are going to be forced to become a lot more polite. To the point where you can fuck your significant other on a busy street corner and no one will watch because they'll know that you don't want them to and that will be enough. The reason this sounds far fetched is because, although this level of mutual respect and politeness is most people's ideal, the fact is that most of the human race are biologically and psychologically incapable of practising it. Transparency, not privacy is the key to this. Openness, as opposed to sneaking around and hiding which, when it comes right down to it is the fundamental nature of privacy. 

The laws of the future are implicit. "Do what thou wilt", "Be excellent to each other", "Live and let live"

Our technology will not "Enforce" these laws.

Our technology will "Enable" them.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 575