tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post6599272310236961309..comments2024-03-28T23:39:08.616-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Catching up with Sci Fi NewsDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger72125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-55580694250690736802017-06-08T18:21:44.557-07:002017-06-08T18:21:44.557-07:00onward
onwardonward<br /><br />onwardDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-45617550161518724812017-06-08T14:33:49.608-07:002017-06-08T14:33:49.608-07:00Alfred: "Publishers will probably have to get...Alfred: <i>"Publishers will probably have to get involved."</i><br />Not necessarily a bad thing. When an author signs a work, if it sells at a premium because of that author's signature, publishers, or some other intermediary will have to step in to distinguish a work signed by a real world author form a work signed by a rubber stamp robot. No big deal.<br /><br /><i>"Proper certification will require that we can uniquely identify each signed item and that these identities be registered in repositories we can all reach."</i><br />That's a possible solution, and may be the eventual solution, but it hasn't been proposed yet. There's no unique identifier for sports memorabilia that I know of yet. There's also a much smaller secondary market for counterfeit sports memorabilia...<br /><br /><i>"Altering a mass produced book at an actual signing will be seen eventually as not secure. It will happen when duplicates show up in the repository."</i><br />I don't know if books are the primary intended target of this law on collectibles, but the situation would apply to anything else: once a 'mass produced' book is signified by someone as being 'not mass produced, but distinct and original' (e.g., after it is signed by an author), it will become something new - something collectible. There's no easy way to account for what it is precisely that collectors value - but if 'authenticity' is one of the things people do value, then verifying that a thing is what it purports to be through some reasonable, anti-fraud measures doesn't appear 'silly' to me.<br />donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-84865252485009504512017-06-08T14:27:31.188-07:002017-06-08T14:27:31.188-07:00Darrell: "Surely we are clever enough to come...Darrell: <i>"Surely we are clever enough to come up with a solution that is NOT legally defining corporations as persons with the rights they currently have OR turning the clocks back to the 15th century..."</i><br />Well, doing so requires refining exactly what the problem is with the status quo before assuming some other system or status is preferable. There are many who assume that everything is broken, and thus, must be destroyed to be rebuilt 'better.' I am not suggesting you are one of those, but the folks who do come from that context are not helpful to improving where we are. Indeed, by opposing reasonable measures and demanding unreasonable fantasies, they oppose actual improvements. So long as you're not wedded to a fantastic notion of how the world can and should work, there's plenty of common ground to build upon. For example...<br /><br />LarryHart: : <i>"What I resist is the current tendency to take that interpretation too literally and treat corporations as equal to (if not greater than) citizens."</i><br />OK...then perhaps restraining certain corporate 'rights' that some have extrapolated to them, but others have not (e.g., overturning Citizens United). There was a fairly large contingent of 'liberals' who wanted to rollback corporate personality - a deliberately constructed front that serves no useful purpose whatsoever (but was imminently effective at preventing more useful conversations).<br /><br /><i>"Corporations by law may not do so even if they "want" to."</i><br />That's not exactly the case, and the inexactness matters. Corporations are allowed to take into account other concerns than maximizing shareholder value at any point in time. It's just that when they do so, there's a different element of scrutiny applied to what they actually do than when they are exercising 'business judgment.' <br /><br />Few pretend corporations can have an equal citizenship role with natural persons. The problem isn't corporations asserting citizenship rights (I don't know of any corporations that tried to 'vote' for example), but corporate formalities being exploited to achieve the ends of a few citizens. If the problem is the corporation as a concept, then the solution is to dissolve separate personality. If the problem is the corporation as implemented, then solutions run the gamut from restraining certain rights that are extended to corporations to ... many other courses of action.donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-69414744299235846142017-06-08T12:07:24.372-07:002017-06-08T12:07:24.372-07:00donzelion said:
"Determining that a corporat...donzelion said:<br /><br /><i>"Determining that a corporation is NOT a person means shifting corporate assets from the 'entity' to the individuals. We can turn back the clocks to the 15th century (where only the Catholic church could 'incorporate') - but aside from diseased imaginations of nostalgic romantics, do we really want to?"</i><br /><br />??? Surely we are clever enough to come up with a solution that is NOT legally defining corporations as persons with the rights they currently have OR turning the clocks back to the 15th century, AND that will work better for achieving a better society for as many people as possible than what we have now? That's rhetorical by the way. There is no doubt in my mind that we are and that we can. There certainly is nothing that constrains us to the two options you portray.<br />Darrell Ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14054311762477388637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-8919761858098133972017-06-08T11:57:03.768-07:002017-06-08T11:57:03.768-07:00@donzelion | Publishers will probably have to get ...@donzelion | Publishers will probably have to get involved. Proper certification will require that we can uniquely identify each signed item and that these identities be registered in repositories we can all reach. It wouldn't be hard to do, but there are interesting consequences. People who don't want to be tracked will be very curious as to how we identify them? Printed UUID's, RFID's, or what?<br /><br />Altering a mass produced book at an actual signing will be seen eventually as not secure. It will happen when duplicates show up in the repository.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-17132641337651480032017-06-08T11:47:20.127-07:002017-06-08T11:47:20.127-07:00donzelion:
Lawyerly response: Can it own property...donzelion:<br /><i><br />Lawyerly response: Can it own property? Can it be taxed? Can it be sued? Can it be subjected to regulations? If yes to any of the above, then it can 'suffer.' And thus is a 'person' of some kind.<br /></i><br /><br />I get that a corporation fills the role of "person" in certain legal senses, which is kinda the whole point. And no, I'm not arguing against limited liability or any such legal aspects of incorporation.<br /><br />What I resist is the current tendency to take that interpretation too literally and treat corporations as equal to (if not greater than) <i>citizens</i>. A corporation who loses money might "suffer", but it does not suffer in the literal sense that a human being does when he loses an important body part or a loved one or all hope for the future. Natural persons are expected to vote with an eye toward compassion, empathy, and good citizenship, as well as their own self-interest. They have to value the harm in human suffering differently from the simple monetary loss inflicted thereby. Corporations by law may not do so even if they "want" to. To pretend that corporations can then have an equal citizenship role with natural persons is a dangerous fallacy.<br /><br />Norman Goldman jokes that Exxon is the Secretary of State. I used to refer to Joe Lieberman as the Senator from Aetna. But those are cynical jests, not meant to accurately describe reality, let alone a blueprint for an improvement.<br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-85785180491033880422017-06-08T11:27:32.675-07:002017-06-08T11:27:32.675-07:00"Bah, never let it be said that the left is c...<i>"Bah, never let it be said that the left is completely lacking in idiots. They just don’t run the movement, as is true on the right."</i><br /><br />Be careful taking Pacific Legal's claims seriously. <br /><br />Several of Governor Brown's most insane ideas in the 1970s. A cap on medical malpractice for wrongful death of $250,000! That is insanely high...in 1970s. Nowadays...it's zealously defended by the same folks who hated it as leftist moonshots. This law may prove similarly insightful, while it seems silly now.<br /><br />The mechanism is similar to any number of anti-fraud provisions, and basically expand bans on trading in counterfeit sports memorabilia into broader categories. The penalties aren't unusual. Requiring that a certifying authority get involved before a person sells an 'original baseball card' or other item may add a few pennies to the transaction once those pieces are in place. <br /><br />A bookseller, like Book Passage, might bypass the law simply by signing a sublease for space to a book author or publisher when they want to record sales - instead of "Bill" selling the books, Bill authorizes others to use his store to sell their books. <br /><br />Bill loses the secondary market (he cannot sell autographed books after the author leaves without additional recording). Little else.<br /><br />That would add a few dollars for certifying that a book left behind by the author was actually signed by that author - but Bill can charge a premium for those 'signed' books anyway. Now he just needs to do the work of verifying that it actually was in fact 'signed' by the author, instead of just some other person who popped a signature on a page and asked to charge an additional $10.donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-6801713262187811842017-06-08T10:53:09.344-07:002017-06-08T10:53:09.344-07:00LarryHart: Navigator's point: "The best t...LarryHart: Navigator's point: <i>"The best test to know whether an entity is real or fictional is the test of suffering."</i> Your point: <i>"This is exactly why it is so wrong to consider corporations to be "persons" in the same sense that live human beings are persons."</i><br /><br />Lawyerly response: Can it own property? Can it be taxed? Can it be sued? Can it be subjected to regulations? If yes to any of the above, then it can 'suffer.' And thus is a 'person' of some kind.<br /><br />Is a legal person the same as a natural person? No. Does it have rights that a natural person does not have? No, but it does have certain special powers (like immortality). Does it have all the rights that a natural person has? Open question. Some parts of the U.S. constitution confer rights on 'all citizens,' other parts on all 'persons,' and other parts, specific subgroups of people. More parts of the Bill of Rights, esp. concerns about 'due process,' limit what the government does, rather than defining which persons get which rights.<br /><br />Determining that a corporation is NOT a person means shifting corporate assets from the 'entity' to the individuals. We can turn back the clocks to the 15th century (where only the Catholic church could 'incorporate') - but aside from diseased imaginations of nostalgic romantics, do we really want to?donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-11779844106622306842017-06-08T10:34:56.766-07:002017-06-08T10:34:56.766-07:00In my experience, most believers are convinced tha... In my experience, most believers are convinced that incorrect and non-believers are Hell-bound, but won't take explicit action to speed us on our way. A small, arguably heretical percentage will, none I know personally.Tim H.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-4082480039183238982017-06-08T10:34:42.086-07:002017-06-08T10:34:42.086-07:00Jumper,
I not sure there is a good definition for...Jumper,<br /><br />I not sure there is a good definition for AI yet, so I’m not sure what will count as fake. I have no doubt you are right about the marketing of robots as if they were intelligent, but I suspect that will be a bit like those potato chip bags that say they are healthy to eat. Readers realize that they are ‘healthier’ than some of the others, but that doesn’t mean we should eat them. They just won’t kill you as fast. 8)<br /><br />I’m quite sure there is an uncanny valley of the mind. Try to talk to an autistic kid who isn’t on the severe end of the spectrum. You’ll encounter the effect. It is very disorienting.<br /><br />In the long run, I think the marketers will learn to distinguish the types of AI. Expert systems are more slave like and we will recognize them as such when they are available. For examples, look to any science fiction movie with androids that are designed to serve sexual needs. Do they think? Are they people? If not, they are just tools like our other expert systems and we won’t feel a moral twinge. If they are… oops… and the story picks up there. 8)Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-91870032214728340742017-06-08T10:26:58.757-07:002017-06-08T10:26:58.757-07:00@Paul SB | so they don't have any grandparent...@Paul SB | <i> so they don't have any grandparents around that can tell them how real and bloody their own religion can get</i><br /><br />Well… without picking on anyone in particular, I encourage you not to worry too much. You might not see the family members educating their children of the dangers, but it is happening. My own mother was quite hostile to religious concepts. My father wasn’t as much. With him it was disgust. Needless to say, none of their children are believers. I’ve tried not to be hostile or disgusted with the people who are believers, but some of their ideas still strike me as toxic. I also know a ‘kid’ (they all seem to be to me as I get older) who used to work for me. His family is full of believers, but he is hostile. I had to help him tone down in the work place, but he has since left and I’m still FB friends with him. I now have some idea of why he is hostile. He didn’t need family reminding him of the dangers. He served in the Army and is quite bright. He figured it out for himself.<br /><br />On the flip side, I also know some believers who aren’t dangers to us. One of them takes the ‘personal ministry’ thing very seriously and without hypocrisy. I went out of my way to help him do what he could for kids who needed help and made darn sure he got some of the social rewards he deserved for his efforts. Another is a relatively gentile person battling his own inner hell, but outwardly he is a professional comedian and worth knowing. Both of them know where I stand regarding a number of beliefs, yet they manage to do more than tolerate me. They aren’t a danger.<br /><br /><i>your picture doesn't look anything like a stew</i><br /><br />Heh. I’m pretty white. When I was a kid and my father was stationed in Iceland, my hair was very blonde and I got mistaken more than once as a native. I have my genetic results, though, and my ancestors mostly followed the coast up from Iberia to Britain as the ice receded. Any Baltic influences are recent. I’m still part of the stew, but you’d have to see the context around my picture to see it. I lived in Oxnard where my failure to learn Spanish as a kid is a hindrance today. My immediate community is very bilingual and I like it that way. <br /><br /><i> I pretty much kept my mouth shut.</i><br /><br />Yah. It’s probably a good thing you don’t score as predominantly a ‘Director’ type. I’ve learned to keep my mouth shut too, but I’m not so good at keeping my disgust off my facial expressions. I gave up playing poker against anyone with decent talent long ago. 8)<br />Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-66535686465564892472017-06-08T06:22:27.205-07:002017-06-08T06:22:27.205-07:00Alfred,
"Yah. I know. Take that too far and ...Alfred,<br /><br />"Yah. I know. Take that too far and the baby gets thrown out with the bath water."<br />- I'm afraid that's exactly what's happening, and not just in the minds of faux ranchers. I have argued for ages that most people in the US take the lies told in church much more seriously than they should because the Reformation was a long time ago, so they don't have any grandparents around that can tell them how real and bloody their own religion can get outside of history books written by "educated" people - which I have been told by many a church-goer are evil by definition. Likewise the US has been a democracy for so long that dictatorship is just a figment of history books to many people here, but the anti-government paranoia - often fed by the frustrations of any bureaucracy - feels all too real.<br /><br />BTW - your picture doesn't look anything like a stew. But stew is good. If it was one homogenous pot of plain pea soup, it would get dull real fast. I liked most of the muslims I worked with when I was in college, and not one tried to convert me - though I don't think any of them could figure out what religion I am. That might be because I look at pros and cons in everything and don't just choose one side and get stupid about it. Then at other times I just keep my mouth shut. I was at a barbecue with a bunch of teachers the day the London attack happened, and they were going on and on about those evil muslims and how we have to secure our borders. I could have said something about the number of mass shootings in America that were not done by muslims, or the problems of getting hot under the collar by what's in the news and ignoring what isn't (the spotlight fallacy), but I need some of them to write me letters of recommendation, and the host has a garage full of guns and a family history of depressive disorders. I pretty much kept my mouth shut. At least here I can speak my mind without fear of being shot.Paul SBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-46566571264133311402017-06-08T03:25:36.437-07:002017-06-08T03:25:36.437-07:00I expect commercial interests to push fake AI prio...I expect commercial interests to push fake AI prior to the real deal. Look at how much they invoke cuteness as a substitute for real product. Teddy Ruxpin.<br /><br />Is there also an uncanny valley of the mind?Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-34284230885369237942017-06-08T02:29:21.409-07:002017-06-08T02:29:21.409-07:00David Brin, Thank you for your response on your pe...David Brin, Thank you for your response on your perspective of Harari's positions on dataism, the impossibility of AI values and calls for renunciation of hyper technology. <br /><br />I look forward to your future blogs examining your perspectives on these concepts and the reasons for your differences.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01991237506890261650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-18253527097095931272017-06-07T18:22:47.792-07:002017-06-07T18:22:47.792-07:00So... next time someone does a Jovian aero-breakin...So... next time someone does a Jovian aero-breaking scene in a movie, they should have some excellent reference material from Juno. 8)<br /><br />https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap170607.htmlAlfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-45476777539369230392017-06-07T17:41:54.388-07:002017-06-07T17:41:54.388-07:00@Tim Wolter,
I've heard of Forbidden Planet a...@Tim Wolter,<br /><br />I've heard of Forbidden Planet as a comics shop, but I pictured it in the US. Maybe there are some stateside shops using that name. Or maybe it was one of the many British comics pros who I remember talking about it in the first place.<br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-89062032824592835802017-06-07T15:51:15.096-07:002017-06-07T15:51:15.096-07:00It has been so many years since my Sci Fi loving s...It has been so many years since my Sci Fi loving son and I discovered the London Forbidden Planet. I had to check and see that they are still around.<br /><br />They are. And in fact seem to have grown into a chain.<br /><br />Nice to see Sci Fi thriving at least in some micro climates.<br /><br />T.Tacitushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17007086196578740689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-63469040443086008772017-06-07T15:16:07.534-07:002017-06-07T15:16:07.534-07:00LarryHart wrote: I think Dr Brin's sarcastic &...LarryHart wrote: I think Dr Brin's sarcastic "How horrible!" was meant as "How horrible for us!"<br /><br />Could might be. The subtleties of tone are somewhat lacking in this medium.Zepp Jamiesonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16261339498383415026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-5555577056100374262017-06-07T13:11:48.536-07:002017-06-07T13:11:48.536-07:00Dr Brin:
Zepp,&LH where The Postman stands ou...Dr Brin:<br /><i><br />Zepp,&LH where The Postman stands out is it is one of the only PA stories that is about citizenship and the power of the commonfolk.<br /></i><br /><br />I'm only arguing semantics now, but to me, "changed the genre" suggests spawning of imitators, maybe even to the extent that "post-Apocalyptic stories from now on almost <b>have</b> to give a nod to citizenship and the power of the commonfolk." If one book is a stand-alone example of a variation on the theme, it can perhaps <b>transcend</b> the genre, but it's hard to see that it <b>changed</b> the genre.<br /><br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-76427592960413374542017-06-07T13:07:11.303-07:002017-06-07T13:07:11.303-07:00Zepp Jamieson:
Doctor Brin wrote: "Crushed m...Zepp Jamieson:<br /><i><br />Doctor Brin wrote: "Crushed majorities might actually get freedom! How horrible!"<br />History suggests that it could well be horrible. It's not always the case (South Africa, thanks mostly to Mandela) but usually the empowered group is vindictive and often vengeful. <br /></i><br /><br />I think Dr Brin's sarcastic "How horrible!" was meant as "How horrible for us!" If the oppressors get their comeuppance, that's more of a local issue.<br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-57456111015371313902017-06-07T12:48:42.359-07:002017-06-07T12:48:42.359-07:00I'm very interested in donzelion's take on...I'm very interested in donzelion's take on the shunning of Qatar. DZL has a level of insight into Saudi motivations that greatly impresses me (and changes my mind occasionally). A nice counter-balance to some of David's conspiracy theories (which also change my mind sometimes). <br /><br />I'm not interested in what locum has to say about the matter, save as a sort of anti-oracle. Whatever locum thinks is pretty much guaranteed to be wrong. If I find myself agreeing with him, I will immediately look for my mistake. <br /><br />matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17757867868731829206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-81642284368172547962017-06-07T12:14:29.859-07:002017-06-07T12:14:29.859-07:00Do you think all American citizens would sit on th...Do you think all American citizens would sit on the sideline regarding Qatar and Bahrain? Most would (no doubt), but it doesn't take many of us acting as though we were sovereigns to change conflicts. Dig into what happened in Ukraine and you'll find some American citizens acting through an NGO or two or three.<br /><br />I think of us more as a pot of stew than as a melting pot and I'm optimistic about that because we identify as all the components of the stew. Many of us are Muslim. Some Shia... some Sunni.<br /><br />The joke version is of course... "Hey! I resemble that remark!"Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-38167460247229823382017-06-07T11:53:43.362-07:002017-06-07T11:53:43.362-07:00Doctor Brin wrote: "Crushed majorities might ...Doctor Brin wrote: "Crushed majorities might actually get freedom! How horrible!"<br />History suggests that it could well be horrible. It's not always the case (South Africa, thanks mostly to Mandela) but usually the empowered group is vindictive and often vengeful. Zepp Jamiesonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16261339498383415026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-40348723618068837792017-06-07T11:50:34.766-07:002017-06-07T11:50:34.766-07:00Doctor Brin wrote: "[Postman] is one of the o...Doctor Brin wrote: "[Postman] is one of the only PA stories that is about citizenship and the power of the commonfolk."<br /><br />Indeed so. Niven and Pournelle took a similar tack in their PA work, but yours was notably superior in my estimation.Zepp Jamiesonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16261339498383415026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-60314592777417790342017-06-07T11:30:31.335-07:002017-06-07T11:30:31.335-07:00Mind you, Bahrain and Qatar could go Shia, with th...Mind you, Bahrain and Qatar could go Shia, with their long-repressed majorities and Saudi could see populist quakes along its shiite coast. Oh! Crushed majorities might actually get freedom! How horrible!David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.com