News:

That's okay, I know how to turn my washing machine into a centrifuge if need be.

Main Menu
Menu

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.

Show posts Menu

Messages - Captain Utopia

#106
Literate Chaotic / Re: A Chaos Marxism Primer
February 16, 2011, 04:11:57 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 16, 2011, 04:06:21 PM
I have to work against my ego, constantly. It's a distraction.

Do you mean to weaken it, or redirect it?
#107
Quote from: Khara on February 16, 2011, 04:00:57 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 16, 2011, 03:49:49 PM
It's harder for bureaucracy to sustain itself if you employ common sense.  Thoughtlessly following procedure is the (our) definition of civilization.

I wasn't slamming honey, I was agreeing with you....  :?

I'm thinking being civilized ain't always what it's cracked up to be, however, considering the alternative, I'll learn to deal  :wink:

Oops - sorry for the confusion - I was agreeing with you too... just riffing on the "civilized nation" phrase :-)
#108
It's harder for bureaucracy to sustain itself if you employ common sense.  Thoughtlessly following procedure is the (our) definition of civilization.
#109
And in a civilized nation he'd be rotting in jail for the rest of his life.
#110
Literate Chaotic / Re: A Chaos Marxism Primer
February 15, 2011, 09:16:09 PM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on February 15, 2011, 08:04:34 PM
Quote75.   To put it in magical jargon, we start with the memes and thoughtforms which arise spontaneously from anti-corporate activity, transmute them magically to give them the best chance of survival and replication, and then release them back into the infosphere of the activity where they were born.

is just too fucking much for me to take.

Is that saying much more than take the default reactions people have to X, and use that as a basis to put conscious effort into culture-jamming X?  E.g. people get pissed at adverts being played louder than the shows, so a story about kids suffering hearing loss as a result may have legs.

I dunno, maybe it's because I come from a programming background, but I'm happy using different languages to express different ideas.. the translation isn't that hard if you don't allow yourself to get offended by the flowery jargon.
#111
Quote from: Cuddlefish on February 15, 2011, 04:13:29 PM
I was going to say something about this, but I didn't want to draw any attention to myself in hostile thread.

Argh, it's too late... Remington noooooo!

#112
Quote from: Cain on February 15, 2011, 01:10:34 PM
Not that I know of, though I did think that as well.  Of course, there are as many problems with that as it could solve, such as the energy and labour intense nature of support such colonies would need over the long term, the legal status of such colonies etc etc  and as far as we know, those ice deposits on the Moon and Mars are nonreplaceable, and so a very limited resource over the long term.  Of course, terraforming may be able to eventually bring about a climate where such fresh water stores become replenishible, but if we master the science of that, I think the need for offworld colonies would also be significantly lessened.

It's estimated that there are about 600 million tons of water at the lunar north pole, in sheets a couple of meters thick.  So let's take an over-estimate of water usage based on what we currently use - about 100 gallons per day per person.  This would be much less when you take recycling and water-conservation methods into account.  But anyway, at that given rate you've got about half a million person-years of water available.

Given that half the difficulty of the Apollo missions was getting people back to Earth - dumping supplies and materials on the moon would be a lot easier than that.  If there existed the political will, we could have a sustainable, or near-sustainable moonbase within a decade - we've solved most of the major technical challenges with the existing space stations.
#113
When your exports are $1.8 trillion and your imports are $2.5 trillion (2008 figures), you're throwing money away you can't easily get back.  When an American worker can be replaced for a fraction of the cost by out-sourcing, with no tangible downside, what rational corporation would do otherwise?

I'd like to see import levies relative to the last 12 month average trade balance.  But since that would not benefit the corporate stakeholders in the short-term, it's hard to see that happening any time soon.

I would have more sympathy with "trickle down" if in practice it wasn't just "send it overseas".
#114
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 08:05:24 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 05:24:35 PM
Don't blame the robots... all the stats I look at show a MASSIVE decline in industrial fatalities over time.  How much of this is due to compliance and regulation, I have no clue, but the less squishy meatbags you have in direct contact with heavy/poisonous/pointy things, the better.

Greed may have caused it, but the results are not altogether terrible.  That is, if you prefer to be unemployed than dead.

Youth may or may not be more superficial than before.  But they are also getting involved in global concepts and events in an unprecedented scale.  I'm happy with that trade-off.

Ah, thanks for finding that.  I wasn't making a link between industrial fatalities and youth superficiality - I was addressing two separate points.  I guess inline quotes might have made that clearer.
#115
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 08:00:13 PM
Yeah.  I'm still waiting to hear how this is a "happy tradeoff" over having jobs.

It's not - did anyone say it was?
#116
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 07:49:33 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 07:19:24 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:47:47 PM
1.  As available information increases, people are more likely to vote/act against their own best interests.  How do you think the teabaggers got started?

Is this an argument against increasing available information?  What is the causation between increased information and bad decision making?

The link is bad information, most often deliberate.

Deliberate misinformation happens when there is less overall information, too.  I think it's harder today to start an urban myth thanks to snopes, or to successfully put out a simple lie which won't be caught.


Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 07:49:33 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 07:19:24 PM

The trade-off comment was with regards being happy with having more overall involvement at the cost of the bottom of the pyramid being superficially involved.

Wait.  What?

RWHN: "social media is casting the net wider in order to nab that one or two"
#117
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 06:53:21 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 14, 2011, 06:17:51 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 06:08:12 PM
So yeah, seeing more people get involved - even if it's in a superficial way for now, re-tweeting the latest false rumour - is moving in the right direction.

No, it isn't.  That isn't "getting involved", that's called "fucking off".

And so it's worse than doing nothing?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:55:58 PM
Yes.  It gives a false sense of accomplishment.  It's bad signal.

Quote from: Charley Brown on February 14, 2011, 06:56:27 PM
Yes it is, because it contributes to a false illusion.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 14, 2011, 07:01:36 PM
Yeah, it's called complacency.  Life isn't the internet.  You can't click on a link and download freedom. 

I don't believe that someone whose sole involvement with the Egyptian Revolution was to click a "retweet this" button, would have had any other greater role to play had that avenue of minimal involvement not existed.  Complacency or not.

It is, however, demonstrable that current trends reported by social networks have a pivotal role to play in helping these movements gain momentum in the first place.
#118
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:47:47 PM
1.  As available information increases, people are more likely to vote/act against their own best interests.  How do you think the teabaggers got started?

Is this an argument against increasing available information?  What is the causation between increased information and bad decision making?


Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:47:47 PM
2.  If you don't know anything is being accomplished, then I have to write your argument off as Doctor Pangloss-esque rubbish.  Not trying to be offensive here, just saying that if you don't have a replacement for jobs lost, then I don't see how there's a tradeoff at all.  Miss three meals, and then tell me that twitter, etc, is a trade off you're happy with.

The trade-off comment was with regards being happy with having more overall involvement at the cost of the bottom of the pyramid being superficially involved.

Every community increases its subject-matter expertise in relation to the size and involvement of the community base.  I can't prove that it's happening here, but I'd have to see better evidence that it is an exception to the rule than "the minimal level of involvement is now just hitting a 'like' button".

That seems more like a positive rather than negative when it comes to building a community.
#119
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 14, 2011, 06:17:51 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 06:08:12 PM
So yeah, seeing more people get involved - even if it's in a superficial way for now, re-tweeting the latest false rumour - is moving in the right direction.

No, it isn't.  That isn't "getting involved", that's called "fucking off".

And so it's worse than doing nothing?

Do you think we'd see more subject-matter experts if there was a smaller network support them?


Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 14, 2011, 06:17:51 PM
The Egypt thing didn't happen all because of Twitter and Facebook.  That stuff would've been meaningless, without the human fuel, the motivation, behind it.  Twitter and Facebook were fine for setting up times and spreading information, but the actual fuel for that motivation was that the Egyptians said enough was enough and it was time to get OUT OF THE HOUSE and onto the street.

Sure.  I've never expressed an opinion contradictory to that.
#120
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:10:54 PM
Quote from: Captain Utopia on February 14, 2011, 06:08:12 PM

I disagree.  Yes, there are more people who have a shallow understanding of world events than before.  But there are also more subject-matter experts - and all degrees in-between.  It's a network, an informational eco-system, and as such you can't just single out one element as being worthless when they all feed into and support each other.

Okay, I'll bite.  What is actually being accomplished?

Honestly?  I don't know that anything is being accomplished.

Right now, my three year old daughter "likes" the Egyptian revolution, in terms simple enough for her to understand.  I figure that's a foundation to build upon over the years - as education is an on-going process, not a destination.  It seems to me that if you vastly increase the number of people who have a rudimentary understanding of global events, then similarly, that's a foundation to build upon.  It's potential.

If it means that you end up with more subject-matter experts, then that would be quite an accomplishment.

That logic makes sense to me, but I can't prove it.


Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2011, 06:10:54 PM
I don't see the value in this tradeoff.  No jobs plus vague, fuzzy feelings in our empty stomachs > Jobs?

No, but that's not the equation in my mind.  The job problem will only be solved when: minimal collective action > vested private interests.

We have a way to go, as the maximal collective action we can expect (voting) is demonstrably not sufficient.