3,623 Forum Posts by "Ravariel"
Mason posted a bit about this in his Obama thread, which you should all read if you haven't already, but I felt it needed a thread all it's own, because it goes beyond just the Presidential election.
The issue being: the republican "war on women" and the resulting gender gap between the our two candidates.
The Dems have been attempting to make a lot of political hay over this, and have in some ways succeeded (by the very fact that "republican war on women" has entered the mainstream vocab), while the republicans have been falling over themselves to try and claim that no such "war" exists.
Beyond the obvious examples of congress attempting to defund Planned Parenthood and the resulting kerfluffle over Limbaugh's personal attacks against Sandra Fluke, there are other events as well. From the trivial, and mostly just poorly-stated comments from Romney about giving stay-at-home mothers the "dignity of work" (which is a bit ironic considering the recent fluff over Hillary Rosen and Ann Romney's dust-up over twitter), to the much more disturbing laws in Virginia (thankfully failed) and Iowa that attempt to put personhood onto eggs, fertilized or not, and require transvaginal ultrasounds before abortion proceedings. Even more heartbreaking are stories like this which are a direct effect of the types of abortion laws that republicans are, for the most part, responsible for. Nevermind the shockingly (I literally couldn't believe something like this could come out of a public figure's mouth... how can one be so tone-deaf?) insensitive comment: "'We acknowledge the tragedy that occurs with a poor prenatal diagnosis for the baby. But isn't it more humane for the baby to die in a loving manner with comfort care and in the arms of her parents than by the intentional painful death through abortion?"
Additionally, bills in congress attempting to remove federal tax breaks for organizations that perform abortions tried to re-define rape in a way that would not include incidents of incest. Also, one Georgian State Lawmaker has tried to change the legal codification of rape victims to "accusers," while no such change is in the pipes for non-gendered crimes such as burglary.
Some other instances:
GOP trying to eliminate all funding for Title X family planning for low-income families.
The result of this has been a widening gender gap in the support of each candidate. While overall women have supported Democrats by 5-10 points (as Mason rightly pointed out), that gap has widened to nearly 20 points in recent polling, which is one thing that's helping Obama stay comfortably ahead of Romney in national polls, the import of which is obviously up for debate (I personally think that state-by-state comparisons are more important).
Some on the right have tried to respond by saying this "war on women" is a figment of the left's imagination, likeninng it to a "War on Caterpillars", or claiming that Hillary Rosen's comments about Ann Romney, and the resulting backlash of Republican Lawmakers are proof that they are concerned about women's issues as well. In that case, where were the Republicans in denouncing Rush in his attacks against Sandra Fluke (because Obama and the First Lady, as well as other folk on the left were nearly as quick to denounce Rosen's comments as those on the right)?
What say you Newgrounds, is this an issue that could sink the GOP hopefuls, even as economic news continues to be sub-par?
At 4/16/12 10:24 PM, RacistBassist wrote: Obama is also the go to scapegoat for everything bad right now.
Not as much as has been so historically. Remember, he has a republican-led/stalemated congress with approval rates in the single digits to pass off a lot of that blame. There are a lot of people who will buy the cock-blocking congress argument (as legitimate or not as it might be considering the democratic control for the first two years).
In what one might call an "interesting development," Zimmerman's lawyers have resigned the shooting case because they have been unable to contact him for days, and he is taking actions related to the case without consulting them. Likely the website he has launched trying to raise money for his defense, which has images and phrases that put even more questions into the air about his motivations and actions that night, is one of these actions... but not returning phone calls from your lawyer when you're in the middle of a nationally-recognized and highly politically-charged court case is probably not the best course of action.
At 4/3/12 08:34 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Interesting fact:
I'm not dead.
Who are you again? ;)
For example, I discovered you can fire a grappling hook from a potato gun.
...I must find a way to do this and soon.
At 3/31/12 03:46 PM, Korriken wrote: Ok so lately I've been pondering...
Meh, conformity is for the birds. Like what you like, blast your music, be it flamenco, jigs, swing or kletzmer, and give zero fucks what others may think about it. I would blast any of those tunes out my windows and likely a few more. I also like rock, rap (some), and think that auto-tune in general is terrible, but can be used in interesting ways (see: Daft Punk). Where I grew up it was classic rock and country. I got real tired of Aerosmith and the Stones, let me tell you.
I find little interesting in following trends, or sticking to any specific heritage or former way of living/thinking. I can respect social norms, cultural identities, and yet still cross them to take what is good from each one I find. If people think I'm breaking some sort of taboo for doing so then I will put on my troll face and giggle at their discomfort.
At 3/28/12 08:14 PM, SevenSeize wrote: I told my 10 year old he can't have a NG account until he's 20.
Probably for the best. This place is not safe for... anyone really. :P
You listen to bad music and wear pants that don't cover your ankles properly.
When you get old, you start to realize. Pants are not for covering ankles; they're for covering belly buttons and nipples.
Never let it be said I don't admit when I'm wrong.
Santorum's pushes for Gingrich to bow out now look to be ill-advised. His best bet is to keep the Ging in the race, and try to take, between them, more than 50% of the remaining delegates, forcing a brokered convention. At which point, it is likely that Sanny and the Ging (sounds like a olde-timey comedy act) will join forces to leverage themselves into the nomination.
That said, Romney still only has to gain half of the remaining delegates to take it outright, and even after Santorums 2 wins last week, Romney still came away with more delegates than either (although less than half of the total up for grabs). Looks like we're in this for the long haul.
At 7 days ago, TheMason wrote: *bump*
There is nothing in here I don't agree with, though there is one more factor that might be in the negatives for Obama: Real wages have been falling steadily since 2007, and the uptick in hiring has not had any mirror in an uptick in wages. Basically, those people who are going back to work, are working significantly lower-paying jobs.
Also, the polls on Obama are all over the place. A Washington Post poll has him pretty severely in the negatives, (only a 46% overall approval rate) especially when it comes to Gas prices. Also, an ABC/NYT poll has him at 41% approval rate. Yet a Reuters/Ipsos poll has him at 50%, so go figure.
I wonder, though, if an Iranian engagement would be at all bad for Obama. If Israel strikes in May, as has been reported that they could, we would undoubtedly be dragged in. There will be no dawdling from Congress, as any hesitation will be blood in the water at their next election. Obama will know that he can't afford not to go, politically. Regardless of the Dovish nature of the left, such a move might only solidify positive feelings for him. The doves aren't about to vote for Romney or Santorum, and war has generally been a good campaign move for incumbents (LBJ excepted).
At 1 day ago, SolInvictus wrote:At 1 hour ago, Ravariel wrote: Awesome. Must see... right after this one.'bout time axes get some respect as a primary weapon.
Don't knock the d12. </ubernerd>
Ever had that moment where you found something about which you should already know, but was so "mainstream" that you figured cultural knowledge was enough, but once you did finally find it you were blown away and slapped yourself for not finding it earlier?
I mean... HOLY. CRAP. Not only did I not know a voice could do that, I didn't think anyone would be crazy enough to write it.
At 7 hours ago, Angry-Hatter wrote: Not that it makes ME any more right, but that insight is coming from this guy.
Fair.
fillerfillerchickendinner
Not that it makes me any more right, but I'm not the only one to consider this.
Posted just today: http://themoderatevoice.com/141140/romney-wins-two-us-territ ories-kansas-still-up-for-grabs/
At 1 hour ago, RydiaLockheart wrote: I need to see this when it comes out.
Awesome. Must see... right after this one.
Nostalgia, mostly.
Also, tricking Russia into an "arms race" to hasten the collapse of an unstable economy to end the cold war was pretty savvy.
At 21 hours ago, Angry-Hatter wrote: He's only the establishment candidate if he succeeds in winning outright. If the convention is deadlocked for more than two or three ballots, and Romney doesn't seem to be going anywhere, you can bet your ass that the party is going to want to look for someone else to rally behind. Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels, or John Thune come to mind.
The problem is that the Establishment also knows that if they pick a candidate for whom no one voted originally, and who has no infrastructure in place for a strong general election run, they will lose so badly it will be a joke for decades afterwards. For that reason they will rally behind Romney immediately if he can't get to 1144. They know he has the best chance, and has the infrastructure in place to actually run.
When it comes to California, I don't see how Romney is going to be competitive enough to warrant a response by the Obama camp. Romney is no more moderate than John McCain was, and McCain suffered the greatest Republican loss in California in decades. As mentioned, with Rubio on the ticket, something might stir up out of Cali, but barring any major developments, California is as safe as can be.
The thing is, Romney is a republican who won in Massachusetts. He's done it. He can position himself in the right place to win Blue Dogs and independent voters. Obama cannot do the same. No state that is normally Red, will Obama have a chance in. And many battleground states, Obama comes in at a disadvantage due to race. Romney, however, may be the first Michigan native to lose Michigan by 30 points due to his "Let Detroit go Bankrupt" op-ed. It's hard to say where the polls will finally gel once the primary is complete. I expect that the margins will narrow considerably once we get closer to the General. I would expect that the margin in Mass will be 4-5 points once we get close to actual voting, and once Romney has been able to tack away from the ultra-right that he needs to win the Primary and back into the Moderate realm in which he is more comfortable. I don't think he WILL win in Cali. I think he could, and I think he will make Obama spend more money in states where he doesn't want to, which will make the battlegrounds harder-fought.
I don't know, all of this is just hypothetical, but I somehow doubt that staying put in the single most strategically impractical state for presidential campaigning for another 4 years while she slowly built up steam for a Presidential run would have given her a foot in the door better than the instant stardom she got after receiving the VP nod. I'm telling you, Rubio is a thousand times more capable than Palin was, and all the stars seems to be aligning for him.
They certainly do. The same sort of thing happened for Obama. I really wanted Obama to wait 8 years to run due to his relative newcomer status and limited governance experience. Perhaps this is Rubio's chance. I think this is a death sentence of a year for the GOP, and that anyone caught in the calamity might become persona non grata in future elections. Honestly Rubio will have a brilliant chance in 4 years, I just think it's too soon. Then again I thought it was too soon for Obama, so there's that.
At 1 minute ago, Ravariel wrote: Her problem was a lack of (inter)national politics,
That should read "a lack of (inter)national political knowledge/experience." Rackum frackum.
At 54 minutes ago, Angry-Hatter wrote: Wait, how are you getting to that number?
Hmm, I must have added wrong.
So, although unlikely, any one of them could still win. But, if Romney doesn't get the 825 delegates he needs while none of the other candidates win a majority either, then we get a brokered convention where anything could happen. In fact, this has been the strategy of the Paul campaign all along; to amass enough delegates to become a power broker at the convention. This might be something that Gingrich is taking into account as well, and maybe he thinks that if he finishes a strong second in the delagate count, then he's got a chance at the convention.
Yes, there is a strategy in that as well, but Paul is really the only one who benefits from a Brokered Convention. Romney, as the establishment candidate, will be the default and it'll take some serious backroom shenanigans to make them go for anyone but him.
I mostly agree with you that Romney has a better chance of winning the swing states, but no way in hell is he winning in Massachusetts or California. There was a reason for Romney not running for re-election as Governor of Massachusetts: his approval rating was steadily slipping, and he would very likely have lost by double digits if he ran, and if that happened he wouldn't have been able to run for President in '08. Recent polling in MA is showing Romney trailing by 15-20 points. Massachusetts isn't going red anytime soon.
But it's a place Obama will need to spend money (similarly Michigan which he won handily in '08) because of Romney's name recognition and local ties. Normally Mass would get naught but a nominal appearance or two by the democratic nominee, but this will be different. And if Romney can force Obama to spend in places he doesn't want, that's a good thing for him. Don't get me wrong, I don't expect him to win Mass or Cali, but I do expect him to do well enough that Obama will have to expend more resources there than he wants. That opens up the Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida races a little.
But Rubio IS that candidate.
Possibly. The last time someone ran and won in a presidential race after running and losing in the one before is Reagan, and the only reason he lost is because he was challenging an incumbent.
I very much doubt that Palin would have been much of a national figure if she hadn't run for VP. I'm pretty good with Governors, but I'd have to go and look up who the Governor of Alaska is right now; it's about as obscure as you can get. Early polls DO count for something though. It's the metric used by party insiders and donors to decide the winner of the shadow-primary, i.e. who the establishment is going to throw their support behind. I'm not saying that that would be enough to get nominated, but it certainly doesn't hurt to have your name known by people, and the support of the party elites.
She got noticed enough for the nomination due to convention speeches she had given before (similarly how Obama got on radars by his keynote at Clinton's convention). Her problem was a lack of (inter)national politics, which is something she could have honed with 4 more years as Governor. Not to say she would have been a GOOD candidate, but she would have been a better one that the joke she turned out to be.
Clinton, definitely. Cuomo, has a lot of potential to run. O'Malley? Never heard of him. Sounds like an interesting guy, but I can't really find anything but rumors that he's going to run. Irish Roman Catholic, two term governor of a small blue state, Chairman of the DGA, pro-gay marriage, pro immigrant rights, young, good looking. Think he's got a shot?
No idea. Just heard some rumors about him. Who knows? Not sure anyone else is even on the Dem radar right now.
At 3 hours ago, Angry-Hatter wrote: I've actually seen some polling of people's second choices, and interestingly enough, more than half of Big Head's supporters prefer Slimy Suit over Poopstain, and about half of Poopstain's supporters also prefer Slimy Suit over Big Head. So either of them dropping out might not necessarily consolidate the extreme right-wing vote in one candidate.
Hmmm... possibly. I'd like to see those polls, especially if they're fairly recent. Definitely would put a better detail on things.
As to why he's staying in? I'd say that there is a reason for his head being so big. Remember what he said in an interview right after the polls started swinging his way in Iowa? "I'm going to be the nominee", like it was already over. How did that turn out Mr. Third Runner Up?
While his ego is impressive, and he may (also) be doing this to forward a platform (i.e. "omg, the media is so mean to me!"), he's also a great political tactician (if a bit bridge-burney). He has to know the math. He can only lose 21 more delegates before it's impossible for him to win outright. He is nearly 200 delegates behind Romney, and in a virtual tie with Santorum. He will only carry states which would already be red in the General, and will lose in all of the swings by a fair margin. This is known. Ergo his remaining in the race is either pride or strategy, or a mixture of the two. Even if his votes would split between Santorum and Romney, his endorsement of Santorum could give the sweater-vest the momentum he needs to actually challenge... however I don't think his endorsement of Romney would change the numbers much. Without him in the race, the anti-Romney/establishment crowd could galvanize onto one candidate and possibly send them into the convention effectively tied.
When your approval ratings are 25% favorable and 63% unfavorable, it's kind of hard to make the case that you're the more electable candidate. I kind of doubt that an Obama/Santorum matchup is going to be that much more lopsided compared to an Obama/Gingrich matchup, it's Democratic landslide either way.
Romney can tack center and challenge normally blue states. Santorum cannot. Most red states will stay red. With Romney as the challenger, Obama will need to spend money and time on places that should be democratic strongholds, like Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and possibly even California. Granted, I believe that Romney will eventually fall far short, and lose by double-digits (and the fallout from that could descend the GOP even further into abject insanity, but that's for another time). However, a Santorum nom would solidify many Blue states for Obama and allow him to run hard in most of the purple ones.
No way. Not a snowball's chance in hell that Gingrich is the VP, especially if Romney is on the top of the ticket. They hate eachother, but even if they were willing to get beyond that, Gingrich isn't going to add anything to the ticket other than dead weight; his home state is Georgia, which is already solidly Republican, and he's not going to magically become more popular than he is now just because he's not on the top of the ticket. The other potential candidates you mentioned, Rubio, Christie, and Bush, are much more popular than Gingrich, and from states that could potentially be in play in the general election, so I'd say they are definitely going to be on a short list.
Gingrich, unlike most VP noms, wouldn't be there to grab one or two swing states. He would be on the ticket to motivate and rile up the base of the party, that part which has stayed away from Romney by nearly 60% in the primaries. If Romney doesn't have someone the tea-partiers and evangelicals can drool over, then he'll lose from miserable GOP voter turnout alone. Rubio is probably a better choice for Romney, as he deflects from Romney's weakness with Latinos and Border states, and has some star power that will help liven things up. However, his star is already rising well enough for him to have a good shot at the '16 nom, so taking a losing VP nod would likely be a poor move for him.
Palin is actually a great example of this. Had she simply stayed in office in Alaska, and lent her voice to conventions and talk shows, I think she would have had an excellent opportunity this year. But because she was thrust onto a far brighter national stage before she was ready, it turned into a trainwreck that relegated her to Fox News and reality TV. Her polls early on were about as prescient as early polls usually are. Obama, Bush Jr., and Bill Clinton were nowhere on the radar of the early polls in the years that they won.
As unlikely as 8 years of Romney/Gingrich would be, yeah, in 8 years, he'd be as old as Ronald Reagan was when he left the Presidency, so a septuagenarian Gingrich running for President doesn't seem that likely. Although who knows? I've read some rumours about Joe Biden eyeing a run in 2016, even though he'd be 74 on his inaguration day if he was elected, so maybe you shouldn't count out the old-timers too soon.
Clinton, Cuomo, and O'Malley may have something to say about that in '16, and it's likely that if Biden does run, a lot of the troubles that plagued McCain will plague him as well, in regards to age. Regardless, I expect that many of the top guns in the party will avoid any attachment to Romney in preparation for (barring a remarkable economic recovery worldwide) what is likely to be a solid shot at taking the White House in 2016.
...for Romney.
And he knows it. The question is: why? The Ging is certainly the smartest, most politically-savvy member of the GOP's clown car, so there's no way he can not see that by staying in the race, he is guaranteeing a Romney win. After Florida, the writing was on the wall. Gingrich didn't have the money, organization, or persona to be able to take the nomination. But he had to see that a resurgent Santorum would be able to motivate the Republican base much more than the very centrist Romney. So by spitting the base, he sees to it that Romney is getting plurality wins (Gingrich and Santorum had over 50% of the vote combined in Michigan and Ohio.... who do you think Gingrich's voters would have turned to if he had not been in the race?).
My belief is that Gingrich either fears the nomination of Santorum as an auto-lose for the Republicans (RNC analysts have said that he would lose 35 states, creating one of the largest landslide victories in recent memory), or as an even scarier president, and is staying in the race in order to put up a much more palatable nominee.
I also believe that he may be gunning for the VP nomination. VPs generally have much more leeway in their verbiage than presidents. Presidents often use them to shore up support among their base for the general election, and to throw the verbal hand grenades that they can't. And we all know that Gingrich can chuck bombs. Much has been said about Marco Rubio and Chris Christie, and even Jeb Bush as VP noms, to lock in an 8-year GOP control of the White House, but I don't think any of them will take the job. I think they see that taking the VP nom this year, and running with what is likely to be a failed campaign (Obama's favorables are above 50%, and he has a double-digit lead in 3 important swing states; Ohio, Michigan and Virginia, that could cripple the GOP strategy) would harm their chances in 2016, when a clean slate will give them a much better shot. Gingrich knows his time is limited (he's no spring Chicken, and, like Cheney, I think he'd step aside if a Romney/Gingrich ticket were to go the full 8 years), but wants to do as much as he can before the end of his career.
Thoughts?
At 10 hours ago, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: as long as it isn't those fucktards in Wikileaks they have brought so much blowback for the US it is unreal.
Yeah, if only all the shady/illegal/evil shit we pull around the world stayed secret like it should be, we'd be getting much less flak!
At 2 days ago, EKublai wrote: I can't find a lot of research of the viability of algae biofuels, I was wondering if anything could help me on this. Obama's been getting alot of flack for the proposal of investing in developing this alt. fuel but a lot of the criticism seems to be centered around the "weirdness" of slime as energy.
It's interesting, but mostly as a curiosity. The time, cost, and resources necessary to create what is a marginal amount of oil at best is immense. However, the techniques used to create this algae are extremely useful in other areas. The more immediately workable oil/coal alternatives continue to be photovoltaic, wind and nuclear, with decentralization being the catalyst to true energy independence.
For a side project, I've always wondered about Gingrich's lunar base proposal. It seems a little more fantastical but it's also a radical idea, and I'm just wondering where the inkling of possibility might have sprung from.
Why Newt's Moon base is a pipe dream. Bummer, really, because I want a moon base, too. Unfortunately his idea is retarded and would fail almost immediately.
My advice would be to write what you THINK you want it to be, then talk to an animator/film dude to see if it's possible/not prohibitively difficult/costly, and then take their advice. Be open minded and realize that you may need to alter your vision in order for the technical aspects of the film to be done.
I'm a composer, and let me tell you it is very tempting to write stuff for a large and eclectic ensemble, or an orchestra piece that requires 4 percussionists, some saxophones, 2 pianos and a harp. Unfortunately in the real world, a piece like that won't get played because ensembles like that don't exist and orchestras aren't going to shell out the dough for extra performers to play the work of someone whose name isn't Beethoven.
And a few technical notes: One page of script should be approximately one minute of film. Take a peek at a few scripts online (I know there's a (alleged) Romero Resident Evil script floating around that would probably give you some good pointers. First thing's first, though: just write it down. You can tweak the format/details later.
So it was 35 degrees and rainy here today. Tomorrow it's supposed to be in the 40s. (2-8 Celsius for you canucks). Did it jump to late April and noone told me?
An interesting aside: Here's what Grover Norquist, head of the RNC recently said about Romney.
All we have to do is replace Obama. âEU¦ We are not auditioning for fearless leader. We donâEUTMt need a president to tell us in what direction to go. We know what direction to go. We want the Ryan budget. âEU¦ We just need a president to sign this stuff. We donâEUTMt need someone to think it up or design it. The leadership now for the modern conservative movement for the next 20 years will be coming out of the House and the Senate.
As far as the requirement for president?
Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president of the United States. This is a change for Republicans: the House and Senate doing the work with the president signing bills. His job is to be captain of the team, to sign the legislation that has already been prepared.
Just enough brain cells to do what he's told.
At 3 days ago, Deathcon7 wrote: I'm looking to get in at least 1 or 2 judges that are respected, and instead of providing literary critique, provide pure opinion as as enthusiast and reader. But if you do like to write, and you can also provide technical analysis, that'll be a definite plus!
I sent you a PM about doing just that. Let me know if you need my help, okay?
After more than a year, there is finally another Apologist post. There's a link to the blog in my sig, but here is the post itself:
The Big Bad Wolf: The Singularity and Humanity
This post was meant to be up many moons ago, but life got in the way (as it often does). I promise to keep a much more regular schedule from here on out. Anyway, here is my take on what is likely one of the most visceral possible problems of the Singularity.
Much of this blog will be focused on technologies that will help to bring about what is called the Singularity. This is a point in time where we finally create a computer system that is more powerful than the human brain, or are able to enhance the human brain technologically, past which point the intelligence of the human race will increase exponentially. There are a host of possible dangers with this. From destruction at the hands of our Robot Overlords, to the Gray Goo Scenario. However, there is another problem about which we speak (in specifics, there is almost always a subtext going through every discussion) much less often.
Many have called the Singularity the âEUoeend of humanity as we know it,âEU or the invention of a computer more powerful (intelligent) than a human the last invention that mankind ever need make. The fear is that we will either lose out in the evolutionary battle against the superior AI that we create, or that by merging with our technology that we will become less âEUoehuman.âEU
The idea of the Singularity (though the term was coined much later) first arose in 1965 when I.J. Good wrote of an âEUoeintelligence explosionâEU suggesting that if machines could ever surpass humans in intelligence that they could then improve their own intelligence in ways unforeseeable by their now-outmatched human counterparts. In 1993 Vernor Vinge wrote, in what may be the most famous piece about the Singularity, that âEUoeWithin 30 years we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended.âEU Vinge also posits four possible ways that this superhuman intelligence may happen:
1) A computer that is sufficiently advanced as to be âEUoeawakeâEU or a singular AI.
2) A network of computers may âEUoewake upâEU as a superhumanly intelligent entity.
3) Computer/human interfaces may become so intimate that the users may be considered to be superhumanly intelligent.
4) Biological science may advance to increase human intelligence directly.
The first three depend on the advancement of computer technology, based in large part upon MooreâEUTMs Law which posits (extrapolated, the original law was merely for transistors on a circuit) that the power of computers will increase exponentially, doubling every 18 months or so. Ray Kurzweil, another important figure in the realm of Singularity study, has studied the history of information systems, from DNA to computers, and has shown that this exponential growth is fairly consistent through nearly every paradigm. Basically every generation of computer benefits from the previous generationâEUTMs power and so can reach the next generation in a shorter amount of time.
âEUoeBut!âEU You may exclaim, âEUoeWe certainly must be reaching the limits of our current technology. They can only make silicon so thin, and current chips are already measured in the nano-scale, they must be reaching a limit to how powerful they can make our computers!âEU
The answer is: sort of. Yes, we are reaching the limit of our current computer design, but there is already a wealth of research into new technologies that will allow us to build computer chips in 3 dimensions instead of the flat plane that our current chips currently use. Improvements in nanotechnology and the use of carbon nanotubes and graphene are progressing rapidly, and will likely be able to take over where silicon leaves off. And weâEUTMre even beginning to poke at the edges of quantum computing which uses the wackiness of entanglement and multi-state particle physics to transfer information at speeds that are all but instantaneous. The point is that, even if the exponent slows, the advance in technology will not. Barring an extinction event we should have computers more powerful than the human mind by 2045-ish. We may also have neural prosthetics that enhance human intelligence.
But with the discussion of artificially enhancing a portion of ourselves comes the inevitable worry: will making artificial âEUoeimprovementsâEU create an artificiality in a personâEUTMs being/personality/soul? Will the additional computing power of the new brains push morality by the wayside, for cold, robotic logic? What use will emotion, community, family, and human connection have in a world where we are all supercomputers? Where will heroism and altruism fit in a world where probabilities and best-case scenarios can be calculated by anyone in an instant? What will inspire us when we can do anything we want?
Thing isâEU¦ I donâEUTMt know how to answer that problem. There is research into parts of the brain that include neurons thought to be the source of emotional intelligence that may allow us to improve our ability to connect and care about other people if we can (or want to) enhance those areas, but honestly I donâEUTMt know that that sufficiently answers the problem. There is also the Kant-ian answer that through enhanced intelligence and logic, a greater morality will emerge, as we can better calculate the greatest possible good to come out of our moral decisions. This doesnâEUTMt really comfort those afraid that weâEUTMll all become unfeeling robots, however. Quite the opposite, I would expect.
My only real advice in this regard is similar to the advice I would give people who worry about rising Governmental or corporate control: active, diligent attention. Question the motives and effects of technology, especially that tech that could improve or enhance abilities. There is a very real danger of enhancement technology creeping into modern ubiquity without a lot of attention paid to the repercussions. We can only have a moral Singularity if we pay attention to the world and how we change it.
After many (many, many) moons, I finally got my shit together enough to put up a new Cyborg Apologist post. Views, comments and discussion encouraged.
</shamelesspersonalplug>
So, uh... go Pats?
Tonight, Barack Obama gave what could be his final State of the Union address to Congress. He also, has effectively made his first major positional stance in the 2012 campaign.
You can find the full text of his speech here
A liveblog, with various reactions from around the blogosphere can be found here
He has effectively put real distance between his and his Republican opponents' positions, carving out a huge portion of the center/center-left that will be difficult for the Republicans to shift him from. This could hurt, especially if the Primary drags on much longer and the candidates continue to fight over portions of the far right base. Still a lot of areas about which Obama is weak (leadership, failed policies, etc), so this is hardly a knockout, but expect the Republican establishment to scramble to get a nominee but fast, and try to take back some of the independent center.
Should be an interesting couple weeks with Florida coming up. If Romney can't manage an emphatic win there, then the batch of primaries in March will be the thing to watch.
Considering that being an Iranian Nuclear Scientist has about the life expectancy of a Chinese coal miner these days, something tells me that their Nuclear program is doomed anyway. Either through international sanctions, or covert assassinations via Israel or the US, I do not think it will come to invasion.
At 1/17/12 03:41 PM, adrshepard wrote: The difference is that a successful negotiation always results in the criminal or terrorist turning himself in to the higher authority. In diplomacy, there is no higher authority; the two groups are meeting as equals.
You have a funny idea of how diplomacy works.
Having a family and knowing normal people is not a normal life. Getting a job, settling down, sending your kids to school, that is a normal life.
You have a funny idea of what "normal" means.
Bullshit. You simultaneously humanize the enemy by saying they live normal lives yet reduce them into mindless reactionary zealots. Pick one and stick with it.
You have a funny way of completely misreading what is written.
Look, stop calling it "military revenge." There were more than enough practical reasons to justify the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. Also, stop blaming the US for the victims of terrorists. They are human, they chose to attack civilians, the responsibility lies with them exclusively.
A) Bullshit.
B) I have never blamed America for the actions of the 9/11 terrorists.
As though out of all the members of Al-Qaida, they were the only ones willing to do such a horrible thing. As if the suicide bombings of mosques and markets aren't reprehensible enough to merit any action.
Right, so we're thought police now. If you have any animosity toward the US, whether or not you have performed any offensive action, you should die. Gotcha.
Because Iraq and Afghanistan are such safe havens for Al-Qaida now? The group is almost universally despised in Iraq, and has only a token presence in Afghanistan. The places where it thrives, like Yemen and Somalia, have the lightest US military footprint.
Indeed it thrives in places where we are not. This is the problem. Do you want us to occupy every country that might harbor Al-Qaida? That's sure to reduce their numbers and curry us favor in the region. And it won't stretch our forces too thin to be effective anywhere at all. Brilliant idea!
The only diplomacy that will ever work is the kind in which Al-Qaida renounces terrorism and violence, forfeits its goals, or disbands entirely.
Ah, to see things in such simple black-and-white terms as you again. Ignorance really is bliss. Like I said before, if you want to believe that we should (and are able) to just kill them all and everything will be okay and no repercussions will ever happen from doing (or, rather, trying) so, then that's your right. However, if it were actually that simple, don't you think it would have been accomplished already? We've been there for a decade. How long do we need? Infinite occupation? Just turn Iraq and Afghanistan into the 51st and 52nd States? You have no end game, no ultimate goal, other than killing people. That is merely a tool in the strategy to gain a greater goal, not the goal itself.
At 1/16/12 08:34 PM, adrshepard wrote: Don't know what you're getting "thousands" and "millions" from. The Taliban are not the same as Al-Qaida. The insurgents in Iraq are not the same as al-Qaida. Ranger2 can get them confused and lump them together but I don't.
How many have died in the Afghanistan war, again? How many of those have been actual Al Qaeda members? Do all of those others in Iraq and Afghanistan not count, then? Are they less dead because of our military revenge?
Revenge? A side benefit. Members of al-Qaida should be eliminated whenver possible. Do you think that's a bad idea?
I don't think is such simplistic, black-and-white terms. I look at what our goal, long-term, should be. If it is safety from outside attacks, then your idea of hunting them like dogs for the foreseeable future is a middling strategy at best, and a disastrous one at worst. We have caught, or killed every member we know of who had any direct relation to the actual attack. We have disrupted their operations a great deal, and we have killed thousands, many of whom were completely innocent, in order to do it.
The one thing we can never do, with military might, is eliminate them completely. It is impossible. Every exertion of force creates pushback elsewhere, ripples in the pond. Those can (and have in the past... need I remind you of our previous dealings in these very countries in which we hunt our prey in the 80s) have disastrous effects down the road.
None of whom are remotely similar to al-Qaida, a non-state terrorist group. These are not people just trying to live a normal life, like the people of Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran. Everyone who is a part of al-Qaida is a declared enemy of the US, and pretty much of all western civilization.
These people live, work, and exist amongst the people of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and others. These declared enemies, because they are not geographically located in one area, and are not a recognized state, are MORE likely to be able to resist the military pressure, and often come out ahead when it is used. We cannot stay in the middle east forever. We will not. And when our muscle has left, the power vacuum will allow them to rise once again to a level where they may be able to launch attacks. Our current actions HELP them gain more members, HELP them in their propaganda, and HELP them gain the backing of the people of those countries among whom they live.
Without diplomacy, what we do now is only ever a stopgap measure, that almost guarantees renewed attacks internationally and on our home soil, and the subsequent devastation of innocent lives here, and in the middle east, that is sure to follow.
Diplomacy is hard. I get it. It's not sexy, it doesn't go BOOM and shake the camera in a way that makes you or me tingle in our naughty bits. And it may be even harder in this instance because of the nebulous nature of our current foe, and the damage we have already done to any possible negotiating position we may have had. It is, however, the ONLY way to get to any lasting peace. The ONLY way to get close to guaranteeing the no more Americans die in collapsing buildings or in crashing airplanes or in something even worse.
You want blood? We've taken it. We have taken many times over what was taken from us (much of it from people who owed us none). You, if your profile tells the truth, were a Sophomore or Junior in High School when this happened. My friends were graduating college and going on to work in New York and Washington in 2001. Luckily no one I know what harmed that day. You have been inundated with the hatred and vengeance for these people since probably before you even cared about politics. Hell, this event is probably what made you sit up and pay attention. Those of us who lived through the 80s (granted I was young then, but my "9/11" was the falling of the Berlin Wall), and have personal experience with the politics ov er a larger time frame see that this is the result of decades of short-sighted blood-for-blood-for-oil-for-power-plays bullshit, where we failed time and again to consider the grander context, and never tried... really tried... to create peace instead of conflict.
Diplomacy is the only way that will ever happen. But hey, if you just want to kill brown people until the end of time, that's up to you. Your way will only mean more dead Americans, though. More dead and disabled soldiers, more devastated families here in America. But that's okay, as long as we're killin' "bad guys," right? Collateral damage is always worth it, because hey... at least it's not Americans. Except... it is.
