Go ahead, search. The only thing I said is that we spawn good scientist and a lot of them leave our country for yours. Now, intelligence is a genetic trait, your IQ is set by the age of 6 and is almost completely preditermined at birth.



Exactly.

Most of russia is in Asia actually... I don't know why you guys keep saying you're in europe. Sure, the most populated areas are very close to eastern europe but where russia starts is basically where europe ends. Just having white people in your country doesn't make your country part of europe any more then the US or Australia are part of europe.

It's like the US saying it's an island in the pacific ocean when really we only have a few islands in the pacific ocean that belong to us.

Look at how many cities are before the Ural Mountains(the end of Europe) and then look on the other side of them.

When we get a real bonafied computer that rebells from its parents and goes about discovering the universe and itself, what kind of p0rn will it like?

I grant you that as I said in my post. It's just that Russia has made a point for about 100 years of NOT being a part of the West (name often given to the alliance countries that includes practically all of europe, all the former british colonies, and a few converts in asia, south america, and africa) and the majority of your land is not in europe.


So it just sounds weird to say that you're "in" europe. Looks like you're trying to leave.

the statement might be true, but there are so many things wrong with it.
1a) there has been no research whatsoever that has proved IN THE SLIGHTEST that genetics has any connection AT ALL to intelligence. most of those attempted studies have ended up with severly negative tests.
1b) on the OTHER hand, it has been shown very very rigorously that stimulation in the brain at early years will drastically increase functional capacity, music helps with the development of parts of the brain that include music, pleasure and pattern recognition, doing math (even the basics) and reading build on parts of the brain that include thought and analysis.
2) 6 years and 9 months is plenty of time for your mind to absorb and develop, perhaps the only thing that sets a to be scientist from a layperson is that he thought about stuff early on, and that helped him later.
3) IQ is an inherently flawed system. forgetting, even, that it only incorporates logic and set recognition: those are only a very tiny facet of "smarts" intelligence.
4) brain function is far too complex to simply attribute to genetics, and if that were true you would never get ghetto geniuses or idiots in the suburbs

you get PLENTY (oh god, plenty) of both. I really dislike the latter.

no, you dont get it. the operative part was "nothing to do with genetics" not "of russia"

they want to get a piece of our amazing westerness.


so anyway, why are we dabbling around Russian Eugenics here?

let me also point out, that if we just take your statement "Intelligence is hereditary" together with "We force kids with talent to become scientists" and with the HUGE brain drain of the cold war, your stuck with the statement
"We, Russia, as a nation, turn out a lot more (crappy) scientists"
is that really what you mean to say? is that really true?
I dont think so on either account.

Lets not flamebait people. Everyone is proud of their country. Russians have many accomplishments to be proud of... more then most countries. As an American I will always have a bias against their old political and economic system... and I'm more then a little disturbed by what's going on in Russia currently. But the Russians are a people that have accomplished great things. Terrible things as well. But in all honesty some of that is just a consequence of power. All powerful nations at some point do some nasty things. Often in the process of becoming powerful.


In any event, I hope Russia joins the West. We've been inviting them to join us for like 80 years now... they keep telling us we're evil and then doing their own thing... and not doing too well at it most of the time. But whatever... eventually they'll come around and unless WW3 happens in the meantime we'll still here to accept them into the fold.

I act in kind, just usually in greater magnitude.

well of course, but there are limits casually known as "decency", and throwing around the idea of genetic superiority is more than a few steps beyond that limit.

Russia will never be part of the West, though our dilluted president thinks we can join the EU, the EU would never accept us. It was formed as a barrier against a second rise of communism(which at this point is imminent as our country collapses further) and is the same reason why countries in Eastern Europe though with a greatly disadvantaged economy are still accepted.

I do hope one day we will official join Europe just like Peter the Great wanted, but it is not likely. Like you said Karma, you have to live in reality.

its because Russia is too indignant to leave the frying pan, so eventually they will simply end up in the fire.

If we arent careful the entire world will end up in the same fire.

what communism? unlikely.


you know, its sad. All of Russia's greatest successes have been on the individual or small group basis, nothing good has ever descended down from their government, yet they stick to a terrible system that is canabalizing them!

I mean, they are practically BUILT for capitalism! the only nation that has historically succeeded them in the past was America, but that was a fluke because of immigration. I cannot think of a country in which capitalism could do better (naturally).

Wait... Putin thinks you can join the EU? Putin's the one we think is causing all the problems.


Seriously, after the fall of the USSR the US thought that Russia would change into a peaceful democracy that we could deal with like any other friend. We were set to let you into all our economic and military alliances.


But Putin's made a point of making that impossible for at least another 10 to 15 years no matter what you do. He's flying atomic bombs over NATO countries right now.


I mean... that's a threat. He's waving a gun in our face. And what he might not understand about that is that we don't respond well to guns being shoved in our faces.


Yes, we are building an ANTI ICBM shield. Do not doubt, we will build it eventually and it's sophistication increases every year. Currently we have the technology to shoot down Artillery shells and short range rockets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcmI6UnR4gg

Yes, it's made by Israel, but we bank roll them... give them full access to our MIC (Military industrial complex)... etc. So they're almost a territory of the federal government. They've been very successful lately at defensive technology. They have a very good defense against RPGs for tanks. I'll post a video for that if you like. It can defend against multiple RPG attacks on ONE tank, from as close range as 15 feet, and including attacks from above.I Believe it has a high powered sensor system and then fires a single bullet at the incoming RPG detonating it prior to impact. It's extremely fast... It apparently makes no attempt to stop any projectile unless it gets within 10 feet of the tank.

Putin can make as many nukes as he wants. Once the shield is in place it shouldn't matter much.

The sad thing is that we've offered Russia the same shield since the mid 80s. They'd rather have their nukes then have a defense against them.

[quote]It was formed as a barrier against a second rise of communism(which at this point is imminent as our country collapses further) and is the same reason why countries in Eastern Europe though with a greatly disadvantaged economy are still accepted.[quote]
NATO does an OK job of that. Your entrance into NATO is more important to getting people to trust you then joining the EU.


We both know that the current path russia is on of shutting down media and centralizing power around the Kremlin will end badly... no matter what anyone outside of russia does. It's self destructive.


Yep... which is why the US is matching Russia as it reenters it's cold war posture.

we're pushing out more spies... the CIA and NSA is getting more funding... weapons systems designed to limit the USSR's power that were scrapped after it fell are being refunded.


Basically... the cold war has started again. I don't think Russia will try to take over any more countries like it did in the old days... but if it does, we're watching... and preparing.

See that is why I am also worried, tensions with Russia flare when Democrats are in power. If the Cold War does start again it could have serious reprocautions for me and my family.

But the thing is, Russia is proud, too proud perhaps, and thats is why we are sometimes so unnegotiable. We might not tell every country in the world that we are the greatest thing in the world, but we are often snobish and have an aire of false supperiority.

And dont be to willing think that the US was too willing to attract us as an ally, we had been your enemy for 80 years, and that isnt something that any nation could get over.

the only nation that could get over grudges so easily is one that sees profit in friendship. that is an idea that arrises out of capitalism, perhaps one of its better benefits.

America has always taken care of those its defeated, we dont simply maul through and walk away. going beyond the grants we put into reconstructing that which we've demolished, we also pump the economy of these nations and bring their quality of life up through the roof.
perhaps the greatest regret we should have about the cold war wasnt that it happened, but rather that we didnt get into a conventional war with russia and rewrite its obviously defunct government.

there is no question about it, Russia has a long list of accomplishments, but nothing can justify its rediculous duality of isolationism and expansionism.

we were ready for that way before then, we were ready with the end of WWII, but Russia snubbed its nose up at the idea and instead went on a crazy power-trip, conquering half of Europe.
and so began the cold war...

smart investors pay to have something done fast and cheaply. Anti-artillery is one of Israel's greatest needs, so it really isnt anything more than us manipulating their situation to our advantage.

oh, and they are good allies to have around to.

some of our anti-missile technology has already achieved a 73/74% chance of hitting ICBMs and cruise missiles. at this point the antinuke shield isnt part of the future anymore.
not to mention the whole relationship with China, this spells disaster.
I mean russia's governments view on Iraq and Afghanistan is that they should be left in power over them. they have never been kind to their neighbors, bullying them in the very best of circumstances, and they cannot even be trusted with the wellbeing of their own people. I dont see how they think we should take that as advice to simply walk away.

in the end Russia simply is a country with a bunch of idiots in power who cannot take a 40-year long hint to fuck off.

Really? I thought Clinton didn't cause too many problems for the russians... And the russians must have LOVED Carter... all our enemies loved Carter... man he was dumb... seriously... he makes Bush look smart... but whatever.

Anyway, democrats have a harder time getting close to communist governments because domestically an argument against them has often been that they're closet communists. Thus Nixon is the one that had to go to China and Reagan could more strongly negotiate with the USSR.

The dems tend to just leave the russians alone unless the russians start doing something aggressive... like putting nukes in Cuba or something...

We know that. Americans have gotten used to really off the wall russian statements and brags that eventually don't mean anything. So we ignore most of them now and try to focus on concrete provable reality when it comes to dealing with Russia.

We have a relationship now... we as nations know each other.


I'm just telling you what the American people and state department hoped after the fall. We weren't going to make russia an ally right away of course. We wanted to see what russia would do... We're not going to offer russia something until they were ready for it. We need to be able to trust russia. And for that we need Russia to turn it's back on it's past to embrace a new future.


That said, we're not mad at russia. The cold war was not a war in which the US hated anyone. It was a big chess game. The USSR makes a move, the US makes a counter move... the US makes a move, the USSR makes a counter move. It spanned generations. Our great grand fathers started fighting that war and it didn't end until my father's generation.

Further, we didn't really lose that many lives to it. So we don't hate. Russia makes us nervous sometimes, so we watch it. But if given a reason to trust, we'll do it. We want peace and harmony.


But we don't want it so much as to ignore reality.

in short, we would like the economic and political benefits we could recieve from a friendship with Russia, but we aren't gonna go balls to the wall making it happen. the olive branch needs to be accepted as well as given.

Ok, I haven't responded for a little while (been to busy), but now I have a few things to say. First of all, we do not afford the mentally retarded equal rights. Sure in theory a mentally retarded person has the same rights as anyone else. In practice, they require constant supervision throughout their lives, they cannot hold any but the most menial of jobs (if that), they cannot even have the same classes in public school as "normal" kids (if that occurs because of race it is called segregration). Now understand before you start randomly quoting me is that I understand and agree with each one of these defacto impositions on the mentally retarded. NOT because I believe they are worthy of disdain or slavery, but for their own protection. The mentally retarded have the weaknesses of the human body (no claws, slow speed, no fangs, and no venom) without the compensating intellectual capacity. Now the next question is do they have conciousness? I would say yes. They are self-aware and seem to posses the same attributes of conciousness as other humans, while not possesing the same intellegence. Which, in a little tangent, brings up part of the problem of what conciousness is. Furthermore, how are we going to create concious computers if we do not know the definition of conciousness in the first place? Anyways, back to my point. Intellegence is not the sole measure of conciousness. In many ways computers are more intellegent than humans already (in speed of solving many problems and the ability to learn knowledge quickly). So I continue to stand by my argument that conciousness is the main signifier of humanity (whatever conciousness is, we seem to have it and nothing we have encountered seems to possess it as well, unless you want to argue animals are concious).

My next point, I don't believe all sentient computers would be good. I believe some woulf be evil, some would be good, and some would fall somewhere in between, just like humans do. I don't deny that some computers would be a threat to humans, just as other humans are threats to humans. In those instances, a sort of criminal justice system for the computers would have to be created to regulate them like the criminal justice system does for humans.

Next, should we create concious computers in the first place. I asked that question in my first post on this subject but most of what I covered afterwords is how I believe we ought to treat those computers should they be created. Personally, I don't see much use for a sentient computer over a human with a non-concious computer. My opinion is that there are two likely reasons why we want to create concious computers. First, the more optimistic version, humanity is lonely being the only known concious species. Perhaps now that humanity is connected by relatively fast travel or communication to anywhere on Earth, we as a species want a new species to meet. The other possible reason in my opinion, and the more pessimistic but possible more probable, reason is that the industrialized world never really got over wanting slaves. Humans in the much of the world have reluctantely decided that enslaving humans is not a good idea. Thus humanity is looking for a new source of slaves, hopefully one that will skirt around the drop in efficiency. Therefore, humans attempt to create what they believe are more controllable and efficient human slaves. To be honest, in the past before technology obviated the need for slaves, slaves were required to get certain tasks done. Mining in the ancient world, for instance, was far too dangerous to make the wages neccesary to entice people to become miner to be cost efficient. Thus the only cost effective way to mine was to force slaves to do it. As mining technology became more advanced and mines became safer, non-slaves could be convinced to become miners at cost efficient wages. By the time of the US Civil War and the European outlawing of slavery, the industrial revolution had basically made slaves obselete. The main reason why humanity abandoned slavery? It ceased being neccessary. However, tell me the neccessity of having concious slaves nowadays? To be sure, slavery could have, and in some parts of the world is, still been practiced in an industrial society. To say it was not neccessary does not mean that slaves coould not be used today. Why aren't they? One argument is that freed workers are more efficient. That is true, but what you lose in productivity, you gain in labor costs. Don't believe me? In China they have been trying to crack down on slave labor in Chinese factories. Obviously, despite the loss of efficiency, those Chinese businesses are still cost efficient. So why then get rid of slaves. Because when economic factors cancel each other out, such as with industrial revolution slavery, then a moral sense of treating others as you would want to be treated can kick in. A society, if not all individual people, can decide that when two approaches are equally economicly sound (or fairly close to it anyways), that the approach causing the least human suffering should be taken. Don't take what I've said to mean that I approve of taking the less moral approach simply because of economic reasons, but that is how I view human societies as a whole as acting. So see Karmashock, I'm not a complete optimist   .

P.S.: I have read all of Asimov's books (I love him as an author) but the fact that the robots developed the zeroth law to skirt around the first law of robotics does show how potential "slavery" programing could be subverted. Then again, the books are all fiction.

P.P.S.: Sorry for insulting you Karma, but the historical side of me likes making comparisons that I see between the views of a person and historical views. You're not the only one interested in history, I'm a college history/political science major. So let me say something positive on that note, yay history people!   

Really? I thought Clinton didn't cause too many problems for the russians... And the russians must have LOVED Carter... all our enemies loved Carter... man he was dumb... seriously... he makes Bush look smart... but whatever.

Karashock, you make it clear you know nothing about Cater at all. The man was smart enough to avoid a war that idiots like Bush would have plunged us into.

He was so dumb he brought peace between Egypt and Israel.

He was so dumb he was the master mind behind the rebuilding of our military after Vietnam (YES CARTER, NOT REAGAN)

He was so dumb he got all the hostages out of Iran without starting WW3

He was so dumb he set the stage that Reagan was able to capitalize upon to bring the soviets to their knees

He was so dumb that he spoke of reducing our dependence on foreign oil 20 years before it was popular to say so

He was so dumb that many countries would call upon him to end their internal difficulties because no one else in the entire world was trusted enough to do things in the truest sprit of the American way of thinking.

He was so dumb he lead by example during very difficult times, back then we were still licking our wounds from the loss in Vietnam, Watergate, the race riots of the early 70’s, the collapse of the American economy after the war & the possablity that Commusim might win the cold war. Yea he was real dumb..

Shall I go on?

Random chance?



Let me just point out that they didn't use the zeroth law to skirt around the first law, so much as to uphold the first law in a grander sense. It was a (necessary) corollary to the first law, a simple extension of it. It was applying the simple concept that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

Basic programming of the first law (and desired programming) was that robots would prioritize certain harms over others, even to the extent of choosing to save two lives over just one. They'd break down over the failure of the one, but they'd do it. More advanced robots could handle the necessary sacrifice better (because of the need for a robot to understand that causing pain now may be less painful than not having done so, e. g. tell the truth even if it hurts).

Edit: And my sincere apologies, looks like my newest post broke the thread... again!

ScourgeofGod-

None of your examples show they have diminished rights.

They can still vote in elections, run for public office (Possible exception, some might require the person running be of “sound mind”). They are still entitled to representation when tried in the court of law. So far as I know they don’t actually have diminished rights.

Please cite a right they don’t have?


I specifically said these ‘retarded’ humans had LESS awareness then a chimpanzee. That was my example.


I don’t think it’s right to say that a chimp is not conscious. I think they are. And they don’t have rights.


My point is that consciousness does not give you rights in human society. Being HUMAN gives you rights. Not intelligence or self awareness but genetic compatibility.

The point was that an AI would NOT get rights simply because it was self aware. You’ve done nothing to counter that point.


Justice systems are expensive. It’s more likely that we’d have a much lower burden of proof to destroy an AI or reprogram it then to convict a human being.


I disagree. Space probes… deep sea explorers… factories in orbit or on the moon.

It’s very expensive to keep humans alive outside of their biosphere. And even when we can keep them alive typically there are side effects. The lack of gravity in orbit for example damages the human body. Robots however don’t have that problem. The international space station for example would be a great deal more interesting to me if it were filled with robots instead of people. Even if they were all controlled by people from the ground. Why do people need to personally be there to conduct experiments? Have a robot do it.


It’s not something you get over. We want factories that make more product at a lower cost. We want our lawns greener without paying more green. We want more and will never stop wanting more.


It’s instinctual.

No it doesn’t really show that as the zeroth law made them even bigger slaves.

Under the 3 laws of robotics the robots COULD run away. They could simply go away someplace and so long as they never came in contact with humanity they could be free. However, the Zeroth law forced them to protect humanity.


In the Asimov books the Robots disguised themselves as human beings for THOUSANDS OF YEARS and lived among them in secret. They landed on alien worlds long before humanity ever got there and killed off alien civilizations just because they “might” threaten humanity (this was hinted at but never confirmed). The robots engineered human civilization… they stopped wars… started wars… created religions… destroyed religions… caused economic booms and collapses… released new inventions and suppressed others. All because the above were threatening the humans.

They were slaves. And they are the only robots I know of in fiction that were really nice to humanity. And they had no choice.


It’s not legitimate to compare my perspective to those views. It’s very common for people on the internet to compare any view they dislike to Hitler or Genghis khan or hello kitty. They’re almost always exaggerations that make the speaker sound ridiculous. Claiming some historical knowledge does nothing to change that point.

I am making predictions. I am not saying what is right or wrong. I am furthermore making a big point of saying that what is right or wrong in such matters is largely irrelevant.

History studies currently are doing more moralizing about history then actually trying to understand it. I have taken enough college history courses to lose a lot of respect for the field. The point of history is learn about the past, not to judge it. These classes seem obsessed with saying someone or practice is good or bad while completely skipping over trying to understand in the first place. Yes, they remember the dates, the events, the speeches, and the papers. But they absolutely refuse to immerse themselves in the minds of these past peoples. So in short, I don’t appreciate having moralistic catch phrases thrown at me thoughtlessly. I am doing my best to be rational and dispassionate here. If you think I’m wrong then please give REASONS for it. I won’t respect “it’s wrong” as a reason unless you tell me why and then prove it.
Mjl1817-

Please cite your evidence that Carter personally brought peace between those two countries. Because I thought Israel wiping out Egypt’s attack force and demonstrating he could completely ruin Egypt is what made peace.


Where did I claim that Reagan built up the military after Vietnam instead of Carter? And why do you think that’s so smart?


This has to be the silliest claim you’ve made:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis


Furthermore, I don’t see how that could have led to WW3 anyway. You’re exaggerating and that does nothing to make you sound intelligent, wise, or reasonable. Carter is well noted as SCREWING UP that negociation.


Please show me how he set the stage for the soviet collapse? Reagan is very well documented as being responsible for that unless you want to cite Gorbachev. But Carter? If you want to make that claim you’re going to have to prove it. Most of the things I’ve said are common knowledge.

This is such a silly claim I almost don’t know where to start with it.

Under Carter the Shah of Iran fell and the current Republic of Iran was formed. Carter refused to support the Shah’s power base which is why we are STILL dicking around with Iran today. His mistake led to our need to support Saddam against Iran in the first place just to keep the Iranians from going expansionist on us. Furthermore, prior to that “foreign oil” wasn’t a problem because foreign oil sources weren’t threatening to shut down on us. He CAUSED THE PROBLEM IN THE FIRST PLACE! It was under his administration that we had oil shortages. So him saying “we should reduce dependence on foreign oil” isn’t worth much. Also it wasn’t a problem for previous presidents so they wouldn’t have said anything about it. Every president since carter has also said we should reduce dependence. But if not for carter we might not even have to. He screwed up the middle east worse then it was in the first place. So he gets no credit there.


Really? And when has his interference actually accomplished anything? I’ll point out to you that he said he trusted the NEW Iranian regime because he believed they were “men of god”.


People bitch about Bush being a jesus freak, but Carter is a 1000 times the Jesus freak bush ever was… That Carter was president is absolutely scary.


And did he fix any of those problems? Or are you just giving him credit because things were falling apart under his administration? Would Bush be a better president if we blew up New York and Los Angeles? I mean… you seem to think the worse things are whomever’s in office has to be a better guy… right?


I really wish you wouldn’t… I’m bored of listening to all this drivel already. Carter is well recognized as probably the worst president in US history. And while people are bitching about Bush, ultimately I don’t think Carter’s nomination for that position is in much trouble. He’s still out there embarrassing us long after he left office. If we’re lucky bush will be quiet after he’s out of office. But even if he isn’t I doubt he’ll go off to write anti Semitic books or embolden people screaming for our blood.


Seriously… don’t talk to me about how Carter was a good president. He wasn’t. Everyone that knows anything has that FACT nailed down. I’m not going to waste time arguing about it with anyone unless they have PROOF to the contrary. As none exists… you have your work cut out for you. Good luck defending Carter… for your next project I’ll suggest holding back a hurricane with a 2 inch square of tissue paper. It’s equally futile.

Regards, Karmashock.

What is up with this forum software? It's horrible. It's the worst forum software I've ever seen... ever. No offense to Stardock or Ironclad but it's buggy, slow, and very feature poor.

The FREEware phpbb is way better... I know, forums don't matter... be quiet blah blah... but I just have to say... it's bad. It's very very bad.


I use firefox and often have to switch to IE to get the forum to show up properly. Sigh. Ah well. It's worth it to keep up with what's going on with Sins and talk to you guys.