Yes, as the head chair.

Drugs are not a crime, it is but the color of law devised to keep the prison system full.



Gots to have them slaves!!!

Total lack of comprehension on just what "injured" means. If some idiot dies over something they did, who cares, there are still no injuries.

And then we all wonder just how this country got so screwed up, anybody got a mirror?

Exactly!!! The father of this "Bryan" was an idiot. Imagine the father calling Ulbricht a sociopath because his son had no personal responsibility, seems the son fulfilled his destiny. If it wasn't Silk Road, it would have been someone else.

This rant reeks of a severe case of moral relativism, a severe lack of knowing the difference between right and wrong. Right is not what one wants to be right and wrong is not what one deems to be wrong because it goes against their desires.

As for the "Second", just where are the thousands that were "hurt"? Want to talk about hurt, what about Odumbo and all those people he has killed, woman and children included, because he needs to teach another sovereign country a lesson.

And of course you don't care about anything. The only harm to the "rest of you" are of your own making, that is if one where able to be responsible for personal action which is an impossibility for those suffering moral relativism.

It is well beyond ridiculous, it is a sign of the degradation into tyranny. Here is situation that is not a crime, there are no injured parties and he gets a life sentence without parole. But where there are injuries, like the bankers, they get little fines. It is the judge that should be hung on the court house steps for these treasonous acts.

Go figure.

Oh and I did find the rest hence the link to part 3 which was the question, why wasn't part 3 used?

Well, that would be wrong: Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies Available directly from the author right on Amazon, has been since September, even as Kindle, audiobook or as MP3.

Stalking, another emotional complex? And I'm glad you bought up bitter, an actual misnomer but close enough: The fact of the matter is that truth itself, by it's very nature, is belligerent, because it wages war against all forms of deception and mind control. It is a logical fallacy to gauge the veracity of any information based upon how you feel when first seeing or hearing it.

There is no bitter, just belligerent. I don't feel information, I question and research. If what I find is in conflict, then I challenge, not on emotion but findings.

But I do find challenging you to be very entertaining.

I don't know I would totally agree as to your opinion as for example, music is but mathematics in operation. While a machines output would not insure a hit every time, by sheer volume there is no doubt it will succeed and as things are rejected get better and better over time. Science and literature, same thing and with the limits on the size of databases being astronomical, very likely.

But from my standpoint , there are much more sinister things that do concern me. The source posted by Conway was a blog that referenced a book by Nick Bostrom: Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. While I have not nor do I plan on reading the book, the reviews I have read from those that have is the book paints some pretty grim manifestation possibilities but actually gives no solutions. But it is the questions that cause concern, specifically because there are no solutions.

What a crock, nothing more than a rant. No proof, no links, just a two second mention.

And then when links from VT today site are followed, more dead ends. Of course little dickie did it, but this crap doesn't prove anything and what does it matter, Odumbo pardoned him.

Actually it is measurable facts, aren't any in your post, just perceptions, subjective.

But I stand corrected, it isn't the dictionary that is needed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-27KVu4h7TQ What is Reality? Phenomena Vs. Noumena

This is a fairly short presentment on noumena (that which is in the material world) and phenomenal (that which is in the mental world). For those of you that don't bother with the video, feigning involvement without really becoming involved, excerpts:

At 2:50, "So since we are only fully aware of the phenomena that we humans fully experience with our basic five senses, how can we be so sure of what reality really is..."

At 3:32, "So while we are on sight we should talk about how we see the world around us aside from just colors. We look at objects and believe that we are seeing solid things. We believe our walls and doors are 100% matter, completely solid mass is how they seem."

At 4:12, ...your hand doesn't go through, and these objects are classified as solids, but you never touch them. When you feel a solid object you are actually just feeling the repulsive molecular force of the object telling you that it does not want to combine with you and it is not molecularly able to."

First, basic science has nothing to do with molecular structure nor the ability to define the exact nanometer wavelength of light. Basic science states the difference between solids and non-solids are based on displacement. Solids may not be displaced but non-solids will be thus flowing around a solid as it is displaced.

But, there can be no disputing any of this on a scientific basic but that is not what is meant, this is a discussion on noumenal and phenomena, philosophy. This is an attempt to restructure the metaphysical and epistemological values to override the ethical values of philosophy. Why? Let's continue.

But let's skip ahead past all the other stage setting of quantum physics and get to the meat.

At 6:50, "So you are starting to see what a huge difference there is between what our senses tell us and what actually exists in our Universe. Life is a lesson in humility, the things we know as 'facts' today will change. They have and they always will. Science is starting to see all the flaws that arise from the Big Bang theory and from the theory of evolution. That isn't to say that any religion seems to have a perfect answer either, but a mixture of science, mysticism and patience we will continue to find answers. We just need to keep asking questions, never let somebodies "facts" make you a slave to their beliefs." [emphasis added]

Well I would guess that this poor indoctrinated soul has never been introduced to natural law or this whole phenomena would have been understood, things don't change, man's perceptions do. But hey, that would be someone else's facts. But still this is just setting the stage.

At 8:12, "...We have been collectively awakening to the damage that is being done to ourselves and our environment for many years, due to the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, and many other factors. We also see the problems that arise when some have an abundance of economic resources and many feel a lack thereof. All of our societal successes and failures can be categorized and inspected in their phenomena and noumenal states.

It is easy for us to fall into the blame game. The environmental issues are the fault of greedy industrial corporations, the inequality and failing economic system is the fault of a bloated and corrupt government, and all other problems are the fault of a nameable source, while all successes are attributed to individual hard work. Are these things truths or simply perceptions?" [emphasis added]

Now at 9:18 starts the solution phase of the presentment. Of course this starts with a plea to the emotions followed at 11:04 with the ultimate emotion, a plea for love. But if the first part of the presentation is true, how would one know what "love" truly is, after all it is phenomenal?

But at 12:24, we see the real destruction of the psyche, we are all but little cancers upon society if we don't share in the general welfare of all; collectivism, new world order, Agenda 21. And at 14:06, the death blow.

Ladies and gentlemen, what you have experienced is the environment of Germany circa the 1920's and 1930's leading up to Nazism. There was no hostile takeover, it was but the death of a philosophy, the Age of Enlightenment (Aristotelianism) killed by the Age of Romanticism (Platonism). And now this country over generations has gone from the Industrial Age to the Entitlement Age, a stage set for the finale, collectivism whether by facist or communist, welcome to the New World Order.

Wow, you really do need to buy a good dictionary and use it:

Objective: Based upon observation of measurable facts.

Subjective: Personal opinions, assumptions, interpretations and beliefs

So what we really have is an objective analysis based on the observation of your subjective opinion of that which you haven't a clue, hence using any spin deemed necessary to arrive at a preconceived conclusion based on what one wants to be true. An emotional reaction.

And to believe these threads have anything to do with the objective would be just another spin, the total lack of comprehension of what a "forum" entails. But by that reasoning, one could understand how another would consider opinions objective.

It becomes rather obvious even at a cursory glance that one had no clue as to what was posted because of one did, then why were parts 1, 3 and 4 ignored? Even better, why using an analogy by another rather than going straight to the source?

And if one actually did read the sources, why was not part 3 chosen as a better source to answer the question? Bostrom on Superintelligence (3): Doom and the Treacherous Turn

But even more important, why not the original author, because only an analysis by another is available on a google search?

You could well be quite right. Before intelligence can be artificial, it would require an intelligence that could create. All one needs do is look around and see the outcome of that equation.

Yep, seems about the right speed. And Asimov, iRobot and other works of fiction, but we all add what we are capable of:

Criticism of Asimov

"Asimov: Humanist or Lacking Humanity? One notable criticism of Isaac Asimov came from Rachel Kennedy in the Washington post on the 25th August 1985 and read "In 1940, Asimov's humans were stripped-down masculine portraits of Americans from 1940, and they still are. His robots were tin cans with speedlines like an old Studebaker, and still are; the Robot tales depended on an increasingly unworkable distinction between movable and unmovable artificial intelligences, and still do."

Interesting documentary, however it but begs the issue. Good material for those of the emotion to decry the inequality.

This film is like having the problem with the hen house addressed by the foxes. It starts with the metaphysical based around economics and then addresses that issue with interviews with World Bank, IMF and Wall Street people. Welcome foxes.

But still, it only addresses the effects not the causation of the problem. There is but one mention of the actual causation but that was by accident, not purpose. That was Plato and Platonism.

Wow, another superbly intellectual response. Must be careful though, too much use of the emotional will overwork that limbic system, brings on the guys in the white jackets. But I guess we all work within our capabilities, eh?

Amen brother, amen. Back again when this finishes.

Absolutely clear, still no clue eh? Absolutely clear, add any spin to keep from acknowledging reality! Absolutely clear, the subjective would be preferred over the objective any time by yourself!!!

So in other words, you haven't a clue. Just another series of statements without knowledge of how they relate nor how they go together.

A series of suppositions without a clue as to the understandings of causation and effects. And opinions little interest me as they mean nothing without understanding the metaphysics, epistemology and in this case ethics.

But what does become especially clear is a response in the truest form of Plato and that Aristotle is truly dead. What is even clearer is the division of the metaphysical between us.