MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 An hour and a half? Are you kidding us?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 An hour and a half? Are you kidding us?? He's part of the "no-read list" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted October 2, 2012 Author Share Posted October 2, 2012 An hour and a half? Are you kidding us?? relax, you dont have to listen to it... He's part of the "no-read list" productive response... why do i even try... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 relax, you dont have to listen to it... productive response... why do i even try... If that's what you consider trying, then I'd hate to see when you put in little effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Rule for lectures, Journal Clubs, thesis defenses and even talks by Nobel Prize winners (I've seen four in person). Keep your talk to 40-45 minutes at the most and 15-20 minutes for questions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted October 2, 2012 Author Share Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) If that's what you consider trying, then I'd hate to see when you put in little effort. a video on politics? really? seriously, and im saying this with pure intentions, what is your problem? i mean, if you dont want to watch it, then dont. if you watch it and disagree, say why. im guilty of it too, but all we do on this board is ignore the actual ideas, and just insult one another.... ppp is like the view... Edited October 2, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 relax, you dont have to listen to it... Why thank you for that. Oh and just an FYI, I wouldn't have watched it if it were 3 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted October 2, 2012 Author Share Posted October 2, 2012 Why thank you for that. Oh and just an FYI, I wouldn't have watched it if it were 3 minutes. ummmm, ok... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 a video on politics? really? seriously, and im saying this with pure intentions, what is your problem? i mean, if you dont want to watch it, then dont. if you watch it and disagree, say why. im guilty of it too, but all we do on this board is ignore the actual ideas, and just insult one another.... ppp is like the view... Here's a little hint for you; people that do nothing but post stupid links to videos or obscure, agenda-driven articles are not taken very seriously here. It's considered rather connoresque, which is the PPP equivlant of "= RJ". My apologies if you are actually conner. The mental midgets around here tend to change IDs frequently, right Dave in Norfork? Assuming YOU watched this video, did YOU give any thought to summarizing it and stating what YOU thought was reasonable, intelligent or just plain stupid about it? Or did the professor of the Left Wing 101 course you took last semester tell you it was more effective to just spam people with crap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Or did the professor of the Left Wing 101 course you took last semester tell you it was more effective to just spam people with crap? It's all he's got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Give me the Cliffs Notes version please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Give me the Cliffs Notes version please. If I loan you a hammer, I can conceivably own the whole city because lending is inherently risk free ie: you pay it back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Rule for lectures, Journal Clubs, thesis defenses and even talks by Nobel Prize winners (I've seen four in person). Keep your talk to 40-45 minutes at the most and 15-20 minutes for questions Meh...I'll buy it for acceptance speeches. But lectures and other speeches can go as long as 2 hours (including Q&A) if they are truly captivating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted October 2, 2012 Author Share Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) Here's a little hint for you; people that do nothing but post stupid links to videos or obscure, agenda-driven articles are not taken very seriously here. It's considered rather connoresque, which is the PPP equivlant of "= RJ". My apologies if you are actually conner. The mental midgets around here tend to change IDs frequently, right Dave in Norfork? Assuming YOU watched this video, did YOU give any thought to summarizing it and stating what YOU thought was reasonable, intelligent or just plain stupid about it? Or did the professor of the Left Wing 101 course you took last semester tell you it was more effective to just spam people with crap? its simply a video i watched a few days ago. its has to do with how scarcity causes immense conflict which arises out of our enviroment. ( it's necessary in order to survive to some degree) which causes other psychological problems, abberant behavior, wars, etc. ( its not the only cause of conflict, but it is a cause)... he presents some solutions on energy and food distribution. it seemed pretty cool, and was not in the context of left/right politics, but empirical facts about how the environment will dictate much of our behavior, and consequently those behavioral traits are passed down as successful and become conditional... e.g. humans have aggressive instincts within some context... a micro example would be babies that are not touched and not shown love, they will die. or if a child is raised in an abusive home, they usually end up being abusive as adults... he thinks scarcity, and the psychological affects of competition over those resources cause this conflict and aggressive behavior.( again, not the only cause), which makes sense, of course we want to live and flourish... he says we need a technical solution, not a left or right paradigm Edited October 2, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 The world has heard this argument before. Robert Owen first made it in the early 1800's. His brand of thought both influenced and infuriated Karl Marx, who coined the term "utopian socialism" to describe it. He dubbed it utopian because it disregarded human traits, millions of years of human progress, and basic science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted October 3, 2012 Author Share Posted October 3, 2012 (edited) The world has heard this argument before. Robert Owen first made it in the early 1800's. His brand of thought both influenced and infuriated Karl Marx, who coined the term "utopian socialism" to describe it. He dubbed it utopian because it disregarded human traits, millions of years of human progress, and basic science. i agree, some human traits, like jealousy, will not go away. im simply saying, in the most basic way, why is free food or free energy such a bad thing? never mind if it's actually true. if you grant the premise as true, why would that be bad? yes, other problems always exist, there is no utopia, but if free food and energy can be made possible, then why would you not want to do that? not to be a dick, i dont understand why this is a problem? it's like not wanting to invent the combustible engine, and you would rather walk 100 miles?? i mean, are you arguing against technological progress? i dont get it? Edited October 3, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 i agree, some human traits, like jealousy, will not go away. im simply saying, in the most basic way, why is free food or free energy such a bad thing? never mind if it's actually true. if you grant the premise as true, why would that be bad? yes, other problems always exist, there is no utopia, but if free food and energy can be made possible, then why would you not want to do that? not to be a dick, i dont understand why this is a problem? it's like not wanting to invent the combustible engine, and you would rather walk 100 miles?? i mean, are you arguing against technological progress? i dont get it? How the !@#$ do you figure that 'free food' and 'free energy' are available around the corner? Why the !@#$ don't you just want a time machine to gather the knowledge of people 1,000 years in the future? I mean if you don't think that's just around the corner, you must be arguing against technological progress. Right? !@#$ing idiot. (Sorry Tom) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 It's utopian because you, nor anyone else, has outlined how it is possible. Much like Owen who built his theories around the notion that ready to roast chickens would fly into the ovens of the members of his new society, you've constructed a near ideal situation in which food, energy, and housing are limitless in their abundance, and therefor have negligible transaction value; and require no human effort to harvest, build, convert to usability, distribute, or service and maintain. Then, again like Owen, when confronted with reality you become incredulous demanding to know "How can anyone be opposed to free food, energy, and housing for all?" The answer is that no one is opposed to the fairie tale notion of resources so comically and overwhelmingly abundant that they remove the two lower tiers from Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and a fully automated world which completely removes the need for human effot to obtain them. Were it viable not a sane soul would object to it. However, it is not. We are firmly grounded in a reality that provides us with extraordinarily finite resources, and no Roddenberryesque technology on the horizon to replicate our food or warp us around the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 i agree, some human traits, like jealousy, will not go away. im simply saying, in the most basic way, why is free food or free energy such a bad thing? never mind if it's actually true. if you grant the premise as true, why would that be bad? yes, other problems always exist, there is no utopia, but if free food and energy can be made possible, then why would you not want to do that? not to be a dick, i dont understand why this is a problem? it's like not wanting to invent the combustible engine, and you would rather walk 100 miles?? i mean, are you arguing against technological progress? i dont get it? How can something which costs lots of money to produce, ship, distribute and is of limited supply be free? If it is, then who decides who gets how much and how much is enough? Did you even think about this for more than 5 seconds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts