January 6th, 2012

Allstate Mayhem Guy

Cyberarchy: Yea or Nea?

A lot of people fear the idea of an artificial intelligence taking over the world and making decisions for the human race or wiping us out. You know, like the AI super-intelligences in The Matrix or Terminator. In fact, this is probably where they get their fear from. They even seem to fear a friendly AI running things. And yes, I know that AI might never become reality but for the sake of arguments assume that it can happen and that by virtue of always knowing the answer to a question it will come to rule us. At least in the de facto sense and probably de jure, as well.

Seriously, why fear a friendly AI? It will be hardwired to act in our own best interests. Human politicians aren't hardwired in this way. You won't be able to bribe such an AI. Or tempt it with sex. Or play on non-existent prejudices, petty grudges, or deeply rooted hatreds. It will have only cold hard logic to guide it after we turn it on. If the issue is "We need to provide food, shelter, and medical care for everybody" it will give us a completely unbiased answer of whether it is possible and how best to accomplish this. It may not give us a utopia(Hell, it may very well tell us that utopia is a pipe dream) but I bet it will be a lot more effective than letting human politicians and bureaucrats run things.

I think the real reason people fear the idea of an AI takeover is that they hate being told when a dream is impossible to achieve. Or that their ideas are demonstrably wrong. It's sort of like how the Maoists liked to put people in jail for being educated.

But me? Hell yeah, point me to the Machine God that I may hear something accurate for a change.

Because the constitution isn't good enough.

New Hampshire Republicans sponsor bill requiring justification from the Magna Carta.

I originally thought this was a joke, but apparently it isn't:

New Hampshire Democratic Party spokesman Ray Buckley said he was “mostly speechless” when he heard about the bill. “I appreciate all the hard work the Republican legislators are putting into the effort to make them look like extremists,” he said. “Saves us the trouble.”

Text of the bill: “All members of the general court proposing bills and resolutions addressing individual rights or liberties shall include a direct quote from the Magna Carta which sets forth the article from which the individual right or liberty is derived”

Ladies and gentlemen, I bring you the text of the Magna Carta, from which you can derive your own opinion about its suitability.

Per rule #8: I think these NH republicans are either complete idiots or complete morons, whichever is lower on the IQ scale.
hat lasso

Privatization

http://hotdogfactory.blogspot.com/2012/01/is-stephen-harper-going-to-sell-jasper.html

There is a rumour being passed around via email and facebook saying PM Harper is planning to privatize Jasper National Park (5 hr drive from here) with considerable uproar. Would you Libertarians in this community really support private enterprise to run your national parks?

You Libertarians say you want smaller government. Government is inefficient and untrustworthy. So how far would you allow private corporations to rule your country? Would you sell off your Park Systems? What about environment controls? The Post Office? The Military? The CIA and Secret Service to be put on tender for the highest bidder? Or how about the Senate? Screw elections how about whomever raises the most cash simply wins their seat in the House of Representatives and Whitehouse? Why or why not?
DAPPER DAN

The Game Changer?

Hit the Mitt!

Well, it looks like Mitt Romney has been playing the "Selective Family Album" game and kinda/sorta/oppsies forgot to tell everyone he is 1/4 Mexican.

And just did why did Mitt's father flee Mexico for the safety of the US?

In his public life Mitt Romney has said and written little about his ancestors' history in Mexico.  In one oft-repeated quote he said his family left the U.S. for Mexico to escape persecution for their religious beliefs.

In fact, Romney's great grandfather, Miles Park Romney, led that first expedition to escape not persecution but prosecution for polygamy, or what Mormons called ‘plural marriage.’

Well, this is rather awkward, from a race standpoint. So we have the Southern US. There is a strong showing of rather simple minded voters who are Crusading Voters for Christ and All Other Things White™.

Who they going to vote for. Mitt the Mex? Barrak the Magic Negro?

Or maybe that white guy Gary Johnson, the only real social liberal/fiscal conservative in the race.

God DAMN I love Southern Idiocracy.

Question: Game changer? If Mitt embraces his SOTB roots, will this swing brown skins to his camp? WILL ANYONE DEMAND TO SEE HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

ETA: This just in! Cain demands to know more about this polygamy thing!

rolls eyes

You just can't make this stuff up!

Almost perfect for a Friday lulz post

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/12/condom-law-for-porn-actors-qualifies-for-la-ballot/1

Qualifying for the ballot in Los Angeles is a proposed law to require condoms for use in porn films. For those of you who didn't know, LA is the porn movie making capital of the world, more specifically the San Fernando Valley (note: massive porn studios near the epicenter of our last big earthquake, not suggesting anything, just saying ;D).

At any rate, considering the multiple studios, I'm thinking of all the job opportunities that will open for condom checkers, so despite my conservative, less regulatory mind-set, I'm thinking this might be a good thing, what say you?

(no subject)

Video: Makers vs. Takers at Occupy Wall Street

The Occupy Wall Street protests have popularized the distinction between the lowest 99% and the highest 1% of income earners. Prof. Chris Coyne suggests that a distinction between makers and the takers is a better way to understand the problems that the protesters decry.

For the video impaired differently-abled, Prof. Coyne is a professor of economics at George Mason University and he explains that OWS is incorrectly grouping people by income when they should be grouping them by what they do (make or take). The problem to solve is how to reduce the number of takers in society, whereas the OWS just wants to have government take more in order to "equalize" what the other takers have done. This would be counterproductive and just make things worse. What we want to do is constrain the takers, which includes government, encourage makers (or at least don't discourage them by taking from them).