11551
The Flood / Re: Just got an offer from a university
« on: October 29, 2014, 07:23:06 AM »I haven't even started applying yet >.>Philosophy, Politics and Economics.
What course, politics?
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. 11551
The Flood / Re: Just got an offer from a university« on: October 29, 2014, 07:23:06 AM »I haven't even started applying yet >.>Philosophy, Politics and Economics. 11552
The Flood / Re: Just got an offer from a university« on: October 29, 2014, 07:22:03 AM »ASL14 f denmark 11553
The Flood / Just got an offer from a university« on: October 29, 2014, 07:18:58 AM »
East Anglia, on the condition I get ABB at GCE A-level. #cut4bongs
>mfw So. . . How's like in Plebistan? 11554
Serious / An EU referendum in 2017 just got less likely« on: October 29, 2014, 07:09:30 AM »
From the Independent.
Quote Conservative plans to enshrine an EU referendum in law have collapsed amid a bitter Coalition row. 11555
Serious / Re: Germany is building "smart factories", which need no human workers« on: October 29, 2014, 06:13:17 AM »This could have disastrous consequences if allowed to come to fruitionIt's overwhelmingly beneficial, actually. 11556
Serious / Re: YOU'RE NOT A LIBERAL« on: October 29, 2014, 06:12:33 AM »China is CommunistWAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. 11558
The Flood / Re: Caption each others pictures« on: October 28, 2014, 09:40:05 PM »
Easily the best thread of this forum so far.
11561
The Flood / Re: Caption each others pictures« on: October 28, 2014, 09:30:05 PM »If you take offence to any of those regarding you, report them and they will be acted upon.Well, there go all of mine. They were fun while they lasted. 11563
The Flood / Re: Caption each others pictures« on: October 28, 2014, 09:23:18 PM »None of them are funny. This thread just reeks of down-syndrome. This thread breaks so many damn rules, there's a fucking reason why people leaveOh, get a fucking sense of humour. Most of the pictures in this thread are funny to a lot of us, and most people have the decency to partake and laugh at themselves a little; I even asked for somebody to do me. Just, calm down and apply cream to your sore puckered-up asshole. It's pathetic. 11564
Serious / Re: YOU'RE NOT A LIBERAL« on: October 28, 2014, 09:19:53 PM »Meta, would you still disagree with Kinder if you made the distinction between political communism and theoretical communism?It's an inconsequential distinction to make. Political communism, at least when it comes to China, can only stretch insofar as China's government is nominally communist. I don't care what the Chinese government claims to be aiming for, I care about what they do, and why wouldn't anyone else? Communism is an entire socioeconomic system, you can't force the distinction when, by not aspiring to the "theoretical" version, you aren't communist in any meaningful way. 11565
Serious / Re: The Philosopher’s Syllogism« on: October 28, 2014, 09:13:27 PM »
Some redhead depressed mortals are tired weaklings.
11566
Serious / Re: YOU'RE NOT A LIBERAL« on: October 28, 2014, 08:59:51 PM »You have the elimination of differing political parties with the establishment of a single party to which everybody is part of, thus eliminating the concept of class war.Considering it actually established a new political class, and hasn't established a vanguard state, you'd be hard-pressed to find a communist who agreed with that. Quote In 2007, the Property Law of the People's Republic of China was passed which essentially created three differing forms of property: state, collective, and private. State is pretty simple as it's the pubic/government control and because essentially all people belong to the Communist Party and the C.P controls the government, therefore all people have access to this land. Collective is the concept of people working the land together under the guidance of the government, thus making it public land. Private is a tad different as it grants some private property. HOWEVER, this law does not overrule the system of land tenure where the government still has control over all land (remember, the government=people, making it all public) Well, no. The government doesn't equal the people, and the very existence of private property goes, quite clearly, against any formulation of communism. Again, I'd like to direct your attention to the fact that China doesn't even claim to be communist instead calling itself market socialist and having done so since the reforms of Deng Xiaoping. Quote "Each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs" is simple as 1+1=2; China is a manufacturing and agricultural society so people are essentially split between those two fields of work and paidAnd this is where the Oxford Dictionary is wrong. While it can get quite confusing, since Marx never explicitly referred to "socialism" - instead naming it, I think, lower communism - but communism proper has no wages by virtue of having no money. However, the reason the economy is state capitalist and not, in fact, socialist or communist is because the state acts, almost, like a private enterprise in its economic activity by virtue of operating within a model centered around the accumulation of capital. The fact that China isn't based around a production-for-use model is all that's really needed to throw the idea that China is socialist into the trash. 11567
Serious / Re: YOU'RE NOT A LIBERAL« on: October 28, 2014, 08:05:36 PM »Full automation seems like a bit of an inconsequential bar to measure, well, anything by really.My original, and only, assertion is that we will see the abolition of a substantial portion of the labour force in the next half-century.I don't disagree with that. But I'm still leaving it at a few hundred to a thousand years before we fully automate, at least in my amateur opinion. The only things I can imagine staying "human" for that length of time is things like the police force and the courts. Even then, a lot of the work would probably still be automated, with humans being there for the sake of social necessity. Nonetheless, it remains a question as to how much economic benefit such "jobs" would bring. Considering the removal of at least half of the workforce would push capitalism to collapse, I'm not sure what sort of monetary system you could use which would represent the higher value generated by these workers. But that's just an aside consideration. 11568
Serious / Re: YOU'RE NOT A LIBERAL« on: October 28, 2014, 07:58:54 PM »but it's partly about how software engineers are expected to do incredibly difficult tasks and projects because the public generally don't understand the complexity behind it. And at the same time, software advances much faster than hardware.To be honest, I'm not even sure how we got this far. Although I'd add that the development of software will, eventually, lead to a place where the development of both software and hardware becomes easier as the software's capacity grows. I have no time frame for this, though. My original, and only, assertion is that we will see the abolition of a substantial portion of the labour force in the next half-century. 11569
Serious / Re: YOU'RE NOT A LIBERAL« on: October 28, 2014, 07:47:51 PM »Well, it is, if only minimally.Intelligence doesn't correlate with creativity.Isn't that sentence a tad redundant? You have to program robots to learn, they don't just evolve on their own.Well, if you had a robot intelligent enough to re-write its source-code, it could. However, I don't exactly understand what your point is. 11570
Serious / Re: Germany is building "smart factories", which need no human workers« on: October 28, 2014, 07:35:48 PM »This is some sci-fi shit. Yeah, but he's dumd. 11571
Serious / Re: YOU'RE NOT A LIBERAL« on: October 28, 2014, 07:22:38 PM »
Oh, and if you want a little bit of encouragement Dustin towards the idea that I'm not over-stating the development of technology, Ray Kurzweil, a prominent computer scientist, reckons computers will be as smart as humans by 2029.
I actually find this to be an incredibly optimistic estimate, and don't expect to see it for decades after 2030, but it won't take even 100-150 years to displace most of human labour. 11572
The Flood / Re: Caption each others pictures« on: October 28, 2014, 07:18:57 PM »
If Jigsaw and the Joker fucked.
Spoiler 11573
Serious / Re: YOU'RE NOT A LIBERAL« on: October 28, 2014, 07:16:11 PM »Isn't that sentence a tad redundant? You have to program robots to learn, they don't just evolve on their own.Well, if you had a robot intelligent enough to re-write its source-code, it could. That wasn't my point, however. My point is that the human labour involved in programming a robot to learn is miniscule in comparison to programming a robot to be a doctor - if you see my point. You're creating a bit of kit with the capacity to develop, not one rolling off the assembly line already developed. And, of course, it should go without saying that the labour involved in creating such robots could itself be automated. 11574
The Flood / Re: Caption each others pictures« on: October 28, 2014, 07:12:39 PM »
Mickey Mouse, if he were a person.
Spoiler 11578
Serious / Re: YOU'RE NOT A LIBERAL« on: October 28, 2014, 06:58:30 PM »(really a bell shape if you include the first half)Except we already have the capacity to create incredibly intelligent robots (see: Watson). The thrust of innovation comes not from our ability to programme, but the robots' ability to learn. I think you're underestimating the rate at which we can replace human labour which is more "intellectual". And, even if we can't, such jobs only and can only form a fraction of the economy. The socioeconomic impact will be virtually identical, either way. 11579
The Flood / Re: Caption each others pictures« on: October 28, 2014, 06:55:16 PM »
>mfw i spent all my money on a lamborgini and can't afford a colour camera
Spoiler 11580
The Flood / Re: Caption each others pictures« on: October 28, 2014, 06:50:23 PM »
SOMEONE PLEASE DO ME
THIS IS TOO FUNNY |