Liberal Media Greater threat than terrorism

[Josh Cryer]

MSimon, I write software as a hobby, abstraction is the way things get done, you have APIs that break rather difficult problems down into simple problems. Once the API is written, it doesn't have to be rewritten or "labored over." It exists. Like a seed for corn that anyone can plant with minimal knowledge and it will grow.

I believe toolsets will reach a point where 1) repetitive daily labor is no longer necessary (ie, work) 2) the average consumer has the same capabilities of any (useful, half-utilitarian, half-debauch) producer 3) innovation and improvement becomes natural through competition between free information sharing.

ie, there's not one person running things, there's not a hierarchical chain of production where one guy does something that another guy is incapable of doing. A more accurate explanation is I don't believe in "active specialization," that is, someone on a factory line specializing in one widget putting it in something. I accept that specialized functions can and will still exist for those who have advanced knowledge in a certain field, but since I believe free information sharing is going to happen one way or another, their "part" in the overall scheme of things is largely irrelevant (it's only relevant now because governments will seize your assets if you utilize someones patented information).

My airplane should ideally be flown by an AI.

But hopefully I can fly it myself because the toolsets and software make it that easy.

The future is for polymaths, not drones who flip burgers all day or dig holes in the ground to collect rainwater (some large communities in Africa have to dig holes in the ground to collect water for the dry season since industry has dried up their aquifers). Bring up the standard of living everywhere and then those IQs go up and those people are able to participate in a more productive level for all of society rather than wasting away barely persisting. And I think technology will get there long before the markets bring up that standard, and that technology will be the one bringing up their standard of living.


BTW, it's kind of obvious that the "left" and "right" don't always ascribe to these "single issue" things, it's always moving and changing. The environmentalist movement, for example, was highly anti-immigration not too long ago (due to their anti-population inanities), now that is a more Minute Man-esque, right wing position to have (at least in the US).

Many leftists are all about banning smoking but I know just as many who think it is nanny state insanity, especially since the FDA recently got the ability to limit any and all tobacco related materials, including electronic cigarettes (many many e-cig smokers are liberals, in my experience). Likewise, I know that several Southern States, which have far more right wingers than left, have happily banned smoking in public places, if only because it is seen as a "poor welfare person's" habit.

There are not many issues out there where you can say they are "distinctly leftist" or "distinctly" rightist. I know that if you were to accuse me of wanting to take taxpayer money to help welfare recipients I would only tell you the converse, because I think that taxpayer money creates a placating effect that doesn't help them, but I still don't have this exceeding work ethic that many rightists are renowned for. I think that they wouldn't have to have welfare if they could just squat in those tens of thousands of foreclosed and empty houses, for instance. But that's a distinctly anti-capitalist position because it says those banks can shove it.

[MSimon]

My airplane should ideally be flown by an AI.

But hopefully I can fly it myself because the toolsets and software make it that easy.

Having worked in both the nuke power and commercial aircraft industries I can tell you for sure that I wouldn't want amateurs piloting either.

There is a reason every commercial aircraft has a RAT and sometimes even that isn't enough. There is also reason for years of pilot training before you can carry passengers.

Now if you want to take your chances on falling out of the sky - fine. Please don't fall on me.

As to this marvelous AI future: I'll believe it when it can cut down auto fatalities by 90% or better. I have done AI for aircraft subsystems. It is darn complicated if you want exact answers. So far no one is willing to hand over flight control to fuzzy logic or neural networks. There is always a point at the end of all the decision trees where it says: light an alarm and let the pilot deal with it.

You are not a pilot? Most unfortunate. Prayers can be provided.

[MSimon]

There are not many issues out there where you can say they are "distinctly leftist" or "distinctly" rightist.

So true. But that is not the issue of our time. The issue of our time is statists vs libertarians. Straight jackets vs flexibility. Nanny state vs. personal responsibility.

I am happy to report that the next generation is more libertarian than ever. It is possible I have contributed to that in my own small way.

[scareduck]

As to this marvelous AI future: I'll believe it when it can cut down auto fatalities by 90% or better. I have done AI for aircraft subsystems. It is darn complicated if you want exact answers. So far no one is willing to hand over flight control to fuzzy logic or neural networks. There is always a point at the end of all the decision trees where it says: light an alarm and let the pilot deal with it.

There was a interesting InfoWeek piece on the divide between fly-by-wire systems used in Airbuses versus Boeing aircraft that ultimately provide a lot of pilot override. There has been some speculation that the recent Air France crash may have been a result of broken software, but we probably won't find out because of the depth of the water the black box fell into.

[Josh Cryer]

MSimon, I believe automated cars are a much harder problem than planes, we have planes that can basically land themselves without any human presence, they have a much smaller logic space to contend with. Granted it is not perfect and many pilots still want full control over their vehicles (and I think they should have it; I am a car enthusiast and I hate dynamic adjustments the newer cars do because I lose a feel for the road).

However, good automated cars should be around in a decade at most, going by the amazing advances we have made so far. They still won't be able to prevent a large amount of traffic fatalities though unless they were mandated (or old cars slowly filtered out of the system; and given the current state of consumerism older cars are getting a longer lease on life). ie, unless they're mandated you probably wouldn't see such advances in your lifetime. People are going to die in cars, you probably know a few who have (I know two myself).

In the future, when AIs are even better than they are now, I wouldn't suggest that people don't hand over controls due to mistrust; the more likely reason is that their jobs would be on the line.

The issue of our time is statists vs libertarians. Straight jackets vs flexibility. Nanny state vs. personal responsibility.

I feel more along the lines of:

Neoliberal statists (patents, copyright, bank bailouts, status quo) vs "theiving" libertarians (piracy as 1/3rd of all internet traffic, open source and anti-patent movements, etc). And hand holding capitalist collectivism (globalization is the most collectivist socialistic/communistic vision of the planet we have ever seen implemented) vs individualist self-sufficiency and enlightenment (personal movements in creativity, as indicated by the former, but also in social networking sites and revolutionary actions across the globe; wait for G20 in the coming weeks; Iran itself is showing promise, if their "recount" goes properly perhaps the clerics can overturn the results without losing face).

I think in the end we are more libertarian, but we're also more liberal, thanks to the emancipating aspects of free information flow (as Kurzweil argues the printer/copier/fax machine, not politics, brought the USSR down).

[Josh Cryer]

BTW, thread title should really be "corporate media makes crappy unintelligent feeding frenzy without any useful information."

Minuteman double homicide, Tiller murder, Universalist Church shooting, etc. These are all extraordinarily trivial events on the scheme of things but the media is playing them up as some sort of "right wring domestic terrorism."

Why? Because it sells, that's why.

[ravingdave]

BTW, thread title should really be "corporate media makes crappy unintelligent feeding frenzy without any useful information."

Minuteman double homicide, Tiller murder, Universalist Church shooting, etc. These are all extraordinarily trivial events on the scheme of things but the media is playing them up as some sort of "right wring domestic terrorism."

Why? Because it sells, that's why.

This is EXACTLY my point. They are NOT doing it because it sells. All of the financial data indicates that left wing bias HURTS the bottom line.

Fox News is raking in all the dough, while the rest of the News Media is loosing market share. All of the Anti-Iraq war movies have BOMBED but the PRO-Iraq war movies do quite well.

I have read dozens of articles which point out the disconnect between what sells, and what the Media Industry creates. If you really want to see some of these analysises, I'll look them up if you express interest.

So why does the News/Media/Entertainment industry do it ?

It's because they are made up almost entirely of Democrat Union Members from very LIBERAL areas of the country, and they personally HATE conservatives and feel that it is their patriotic duty to Malign and Attack them using every means at their disposal.

They can't help themselves. They REALLY REALLY REALLY HATE conservatives. Here's an example.







These two photos were taken from the cartoon "Family Guy". Seth MacFarlane is the Creator and contributor, and a very staunch advocate of Democrats. He's a major contributor, and actually campaigned for Barack Obama during the election.

The unspoken point that he managed to show about 8 Million people across America is that the Republicans are the same thing as NAZIS.


Why did he do this ? Because he HATES Republicans, and because he was in a position to act upon his hatred, as are all the media people who do it constantly.

What would it take to get a Republican statement in front of 8 million viewers that the Democrats are Nazis ? It would be IMPOSSIBLE.

If you created such an ad, not a single network would run it. If you managed to RAM it down their throats by a court order, every news broadcaster in the country would denounce the ad, denounce the people who produced the ad, spend days and weeks trying to prove it wasn't true, and then they would air dozens of ads on behalf of everyone who objected to the ad.


I hope a little inkling of what i'm getting at is getting through. The means of communicating with the American people is completely in the hands of one sided partisans, and they control what is allowed to be said to the American people.

This is more dangerous than terrorism.


David

[MSimon]

You know - I think a system without patents might have advantages.

http://www.edn.com/blog/1700000170/post/700039470.html

James Watt, patent troll

Jan 20 2009 8:52AM

It was with a sad feeling that I read that, like our very own Jerome Lemelson, James Watt played the patent system like a violin in order to make himself rich with licensing fees all the while suppressing important improvements. This went on until the patents ran out, at which time there was a huge surge of innovation that pushed England into the industrial aged and provided plenty of tax money in process. These are not idle speculations of my own, but the observation of two economists in the preface of their free online book about the difficulties of intellectual property law.

Like me, they don’t think that everything should be free. But it is obvious that a 20-year government-enforced monopoly is not promoting the arts and sciences, as the introductory clause to patent law says it should. I think 5 years might be a little more in line with the speed of technological change. If you want to see a rule that is truly based on promoting innovation you can look at the policy of the General Motors engineering department when I worked there years ago. In that system, your car division had one-year exclusive use of its idea. After that, all the other GM divisions could use the idea. That is why Pontiac got to have antennas embedded in the windshield for one year, and then it appeared across the GM line the next year.

http://mises.org/story/3280

In late 1764, while repairing a small Newcomen steam engine, the idea of allowing steam to expand and condense in separate containers sprang into the mind of James Watt. He spent the next few months in unceasing labor building a model of the new engine. In 1768, after a series of improvements and substantial borrowing, he applied for a patent on the idea, requiring him to travel to London in August. He spent the next six months working hard to obtain his patent. It was finally awarded in January of the following year. Nothing much happened by way of production until 1775. Then, with a major effort supported by his business partner, the rich industrialist Matthew Boulton, Watt secured an act of Parliament extending his patent until the year 1800. The great statesman Edmund Burke spoke eloquently in Parliament in the name of economic freedom and against the creation of unnecessary monopoly — but to no avail.[1] The connections of Watt's partner Boulton were too solid to be defeated by simple principle.

[ravingdave]

130 ABC NewsExcecutives/Journalists/Producers/ etc. gave money to Barack Obama. NONE gave money to McCain.


http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivoro ... tions.html


130 to zero.

Hey, didn't that Pete Rose get into trouble for betting on his own team ?

Why was that ? Because he had the ability to influence the outcome.


Is there something wrong with that ?


Goebbels didn't think so.


Worse than terrorists.


David

[ravingdave]

You don't suppose my previous post has anything to with this ?

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/ ... n-ads.html


Worse than Terrorists.

David

[ravingdave]

David

[nuclearnoob]

Who cares whether a bunch of pseudo-liberals run the media or not? Would we be better off if it were run by pseudo-conservatives? Just about any news or opinion you get from television will rot your brain, whether its Chris Mathews, Wolf Blitzer or Chris Wallace.

Its not about liberal or conservative. That should be abundantly clear by now. Its about keeping the corporate cash machines ringing and whatever will do that, whether it be the madly successful "liberal" comedy show, Family Guy, or the just plain mad and successful Glenn Beck, they both make tons of money for Rupert Murdoch. Voices of the intellectual left are almost never on television because they are critical of corporations and corporate motives, while those on the far right seem to just love the huge corporate media monopolies that they work for.

By the way, I would love to see more intelligent and principled conservatives like Ron Paul have access to the media, but he is excluded for the same reason that intellectual leftists are excluded.

[MSimon]

Who cares whether a bunch of pseudo-liberals run the media or not? Would we be better off if it were run by pseudo-conservatives? Just about any news or opinion you get from television will rot your brain, whether its Chris Mathews, Wolf Blitzer or Chris Wallace.

Its not about liberal or conservative. That should be abundantly clear by now. Its about keeping the corporate cash machines ringing and whatever will do that, whether it be the madly successful "liberal" comedy show, Family Guy, or the just plain mad and successful Glenn Beck, they both make tons of money for Rupert Murdoch. Voices of the intellectual left are almost never on television because they are critical of corporations and corporate motives, while those on the far right seem to just love the huge corporate media monopolies that they work for.

By the way, I would love to see more intelligent and principled conservatives like Ron Paul have access to the media, but he is excluded for the same reason that intellectual leftists are excluded.

The left is much more forgiving of government monopolies enforced with guns. Based on the theory that once you are on the government bowling team you will only care fur da god du vall.

[nuclearnoob]

I agree that left leaning power centers don't tend to break up monopolies. That is a big problem. But no matter who has been in charge, corporate power has been radically centralized over the last few decades and it has gained veto power over the country. Just look at what they're getting away with under the "ultra liberal" Obama. Bailed out corporations get to pay their executives millions of our tax dollars and no one dares criticize it in the media. I'm guessing media heavyweights are afraid that they soon will fail and have to take bailouts and they don't want their salaries limited either. What we have now is some bizarre upside down socialist state that lavishly favors wealth and concentrated power and is chock full of inefficiencies.

[MSimon]

I agree that left leaning power centers don't tend to break up monopolies. That is a big problem. But no matter who has been in charge, corporate power has been radically centralized over the last few decades and it has gained veto power over the country. Just look at what they're getting away with under the "ultra liberal" Obama. Bailed out corporations get to pay their executives millions of our tax dollars and no one dares criticize it in the media. I'm guessing media heavyweights are afraid that they soon will fail and have to take bailouts and they don't want their salaries limited either. What we have now is some bizarre upside down socialist state that lavishly favors wealth and concentrated power and is chock full of inefficiencies.

It is not bizarre. It is the National Socialist model. It is how Europe is currently run. I guess the American's really didn't win the war.