Ten oz

The more robots do the more humans are free to do other things. In a world where peole do everything for themselves there is not much free time for invention or exploration. As machines take on more work people will be free to create new markets and new types of jobs. This has already played out many times over.

Good question. I don't know the answer. I assume which side of the family could be identified. Above and beyond that I am not sure.

@ Stringjunky, I don't think concious thoughts exist to be read. The form of the memories are emotional triggers. However humans experience a wider range of emotions and impressions than mice. As suh what we pass down, if we pass anything, would probably be more complex. My question is just a passing thought about ways to research the past. By viewing triggers, emotions, impressions, and etc pass down in our DNA what can we learn about those who passed the genes?

Studies have indicated that experience may possibly be passed to offspring. http://www.bbc.com/news/health-25156510 (link to study in the article) Considering that not all genes received from parents are expressed could we unknowingly carry generations worth of family memories in our DNA? Might the day come when we can directly read experiences stored in DNA? Learn things about the thoughts of historical figures through DNA in their great grandchildren?

I have wondered the same. A couple years back I thought satellite phones were the obvious replacement to cell phones for many travelers. I researched companies that built satellite phones thinking it would be a good investment opportunity. I found that there were only a few companies in the market and all were private. Looking back now guess it wouldn't have been such a great investment. Apps like FaceTime, google hangouts, and etc allow for international communication over the Internet. While that may not help on a safari it does satisfy a big chunk of the globe trotting market.

I think there are more than those two ways. Flint tools struck by iron or magnesium rich stones would've produced sparks. Accidental fires could've been a natural by product of early tool making. It is even conceivable that early applications of line/rope created enough heat from friction to combust; or at least char enough to inspire a quest for combustion. Of the two means listed I think I prefer option "A". Grass fires would have pushed animals hunted by humans in a direction away from the fire. It would've been a good ambush opportunity for humans. So I think early humans may have looked forward to seasonal wild fires and perhaps even looked to influence them.

Viewers of media could choose but it requires being educated on the issues and most have abdicated that responsibility to someone else be it a pundit, person on twitter, radio host, or etc. Where I live talking cat videos go viral and get tens of millions of views online while half the country still isnt sure what to believe about evolution or climate change. In a perfect world where people primarily made good choices any number of laws would not neccessary. Why have a minium wage? People could just choose not to work for poor wages and then companies would be forced to pay good wages right? In application it just doesn't work. IMO average people generally look to the middle of a debate as the de facto solution. A compromise. They assume both sides of an issue have merit so the middle must be a good place. It relieves them of having to actually delve too deeply into any of the information. If 97 scientists say climate change is happening and man made but then 3 very vocal and well funded scientists say no it isn't the conclusion becomes that the climate is changing but it isn't clear how much or why, back to viral cat videos. This is how wealthy people create common cause. They inflate false issues and pray upon people's natural tendency for compromise. When that doesn't work they resort to fear tatics. Things like "give us tax cuts or else we will have to lay people off" or "approve this pipe line or else gas prices will go up by X amount".

Schroedinger's cat in a box was a thought expirement. No point trying to out think it.

@ John Cuthber, you are right. I am looking at it from a perfect world persceptive. In the real world companies use money to manipulate the political system. Rather than overtly breaking laws they buy politicians and have more favorable laws written. Wealthy individuals also own the majority of media and use it to control debate and the issues of the day. They fudge facts and straight up lie in order to convince average people they share common cause when clearly they don't.

Hard to say. Does the 10th floor have the same total sq footage and is it selling a product that can handle a greater volume without saturating it's market? Assuming the answer to both questions is yes I imagine most businesses would convert. Unless marketing showed that items sold on other floors were responsible for the departments stores traffic. Good choice of an example. Many of the department stores I grew up with are dead or dying.

@Acme, I have not forgotten this thread either. I have been waiting till I got around to reading The Authoritarians link previous given http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf before commenting further. I admittedly probably could've already made time for it.Perhaps tomorrow I shall make getting through a healthy chunk a priority.

In democratic countries laws can be passed that prevent "very low wages". That is why I followed "overtly breaking the law" statement with my thoughts about the governments responsibility. On top of the things previously mentioned laws requiring governing taxation, increases in the minimum wage, vacation pay, overtime pay, perternity leave, etc, etc can be required as basic worker rights. Then corporations can seek wealth without it having negative effects.The reason for a for profit business is profit. Greed is bad but I don't think it can be removed from the profit model. If more can be had than more is generally going to be preferred.

@ the OP, this is a good topic. For some time now I have thought about the pros and cons of how insulated people are becoming. With modern media people can pick and chose information that caters to their preferences. There was a time when media, imperfect or not, was at least mutual. Most people experienced the same media and water cooler talk at least was grounded in the same basic information. Today that isn't true. Some people exclusively focus on cat videos and and ice bucket challange fails while others prefer climate change denial. It goes beyond media though. Things like dating web sites and hook up apps allow people to find each other based on preferences, commonality, or like mindedness. I recall as a young man having to be on my best behavior during dates. Not knowing the religious, political, or basic modern trends my dates may be most favorable toward made me mindful and respectfully of all possibilities. Today I suppose such formalities are less necessary. If two people agree to date off of a website designed for atheist there is no need for either to tip toe around the issue of religion for example. Empathy becomes a less neccessary trait? The genie is out of the bottle now though. Not sure it can be reversed. We all insulate ourselves to a point these days.

"On to something" is just another way of saying I liked what you posted.

I don't believe wealthy people are purposely suffocating people. I think wealthy people are focus on accumulating all the wealth they can. So long as the wealthy are not overtly breaking the law wealth accumulation isn't a bad thing. As described in my pervious post #17 I think government is letting people down. We have allowed for a business does things better than govt philosophy to become pervasive. Looking out for the good of society is not the responsibility of private enterprise. It is the role of the government and over the last 30yrs here in the states we have abdicated more and more of the public's interest to private business. There are things that only the government can do because there is not a direct monetary reward. The Govt spent billions on R&D to go to the moon and beyond before there was a way to profit from it. Things like GPS, cable television, cell phones, and etc came later as a by product. It was the publics (govt) projects that created those markets and the billionaires it has produced. Same goes for any number of industries. Long before FedEx and UPS became companies the Govt was building the highway infastructure those companies rely on to do business. The govt via the military spent billions on Jet turbine technology without which today any number of business would not exist. Plus those govt jobs tend to be more stable and force business to offer more benefits and better wages to compete for the brain power. It is the government role to create opportunity. The business does it better mantra is stagnating things. There are large projects that no private business will take on. The Government should build a national highspeed rail line, solar powered LED highways, desalination water facilities, spend money researching the bottom of the oceans, put satellites around mars, travel to Europe, etc, etc, etc. Just as no one could have predicted today's use of computers when NASA was using vacuum tubes to calculate moon missions the above projects would spawn any number of new markets for private enterprise to exploit and create millions of new jobs. No democracy should be on hands and knees hoping for the philanthropy of wealthy individuals. Not when we can make our own democratic choices.

In the United states after the revolution a government was form and elections have since determined leadership. For a very long time those elected saw fit to displace natives and enslave a race of people. Horrible acts and yet the go to governmental sin for example for you and many other people is typically Hitler and the Nazi's. It seems as if an evil that goes unpunished or isn't stopped just becomes water under the bridge as history moves advances. Meanwhile sins punished and checked before their natural conclusions stand as examples for all time. Or in other words; history is written by the winners. Ignoring problems doesn't work and treating adults like children always creates animosity. Which plays to John's point about why Hamas could become popular to begin with. The outcome of elections should not be the deciding factor for whether or not one supports elections. It doesn't really matter whether or not Palestinians would choose a model democracy. They have the basic human right to make decisions about their life and their representation.

@ iNow, +1 good post. In my opinion one critical component is that we can't rely on private industry alone. Their motives are profit driven with the good of the populous not being a true goal. The government has a role. There are markets where private industry doesn't act because the scale is too large and or the reward to little. The Government, who does care about the populous, should fill in those markets. If the U.S. government built highspeed rail throughout the states it would create an enormous amount of jobs and continue to employ people long after it was completed. It would also be a benifit to industry as they could transport product much faster. No private company has the money of incentive to build a national highspeed rail line from LA to New york. So the government would be creating and managing its own market. Another example of something would be solar roadways: http://www.solarroadways.com/intro.shtml Again it would employ an enormous amount of people, private industry would benefit sense they also heavily use public roadways, and there is no incentive for private industry to do this. In the states we use to understand this. We build highways and bridges, started the post office, put satellites is orbit, and supplemented airports, stadiums, monuments, railways, and so on. The recent attitude that everything private is better than everything the government does is bad for both the average person and for business. Government stepping in and managing markets private industry can not or will not is important to ensuring a healthy middleclass.

Republicans only win elections because of gerrymandering. The only demographic Republicans have won in the last several national elections is white males. The majority of Latinos, Asians, Blacks, and women all vote democrat. Republicans maintain influence through gerrymandering of congressional districts and the federalist society's manipulation of our courts. It also helps that the united states has an antiquated way of appointing representation. No reason why states like Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, Nebraska, and etc with their low populations have the same voice in the Senate as large densely populated states like California, New York, Texas, Illinois, Florida, and etc.@ the OP I am of a couple different minds. While I absolutely believe they is a role for the Government to set a minium wage, safety standards, paid overtime standards, holidays, vacation time, medical, and so on I also feel we the people have ignored our responsibility. For example we all know Walmart is bad. Walmart is the countries largest employer, the owners are billionaires, and many of the products come from overseas where Walmart is expoiling the system. Walmarts are terrible for communities. They move in and monopolize business. They crush local business and often demand tax breaks and free permits for the privilege. Yet, millions still CHOOSE to shop at Walmart. As consumers we the people enable Walmart. No one is forcing our hands. We could just not shop there. I personally have not set foot inside a Walmart in about 7-8 years. Same goes for any number of businesses. As a matter of principle when my wife and I eat out we avoid chain or franchise eateries. We eat at locally owned places. As consumers we can effect change. For examplev if everyone in the market for a new car focus on fuel efficiency auto companies would build more fuel efficient cars. Instead we are a nation where people CHOOSE to drive big 4 wheel drive trucks, shop at Walmart, dine out at Applebee's, and feed our children Burger King.

I understand the sentiment however the Euro and US Dollar is worth a lot more than the currencies in the various countries exploited. Workers deserve a "fair" share of the profits from their labor. What is "fair" can be very ambigious. As a starting place affluent countries should at least ensure safe work practices based on their current standards. Above average pay should not trump what has already been identified as something we wouldn't allow for ourselves.

Exploitation of work standards in less affluent countries have contributed to the problem as well. Modernized democracies should not tolerate companies who capitalize from work standards beneath their home country's standard.

We all agree that Hitler was evil. We all agree that he had to be stopped. Hitler invaded his neighbors and is responsible for the death of millions. Hitler had a advanced military and was experimenting with WMDs. Hitler was a threat to the world. Invoking Hilters name as a comparison simply doesn't work . Hamas has not killed millions, doesn't have an advanced military arsenal, isn't a threat to every man women and child on earth. How Hitler came into power, who supported him, and why they supported him has no bearing in this discussion. Hamas is not going to evolve into a Nazi level threat.

I answered this question already. Countries don't wage war to win battles. War is waged to accomplish goals in a region. You are right. My question was poorly worded. I asked for a motive when what I was actually looking for was their goal, desired outcome? My apologizes.

Martin Luther King stood up to bullies during the civil rights movement by allowing himself to be arested, verbally abused, FBI to wire tap his house, and so on. In the South police were able to break up protests, knock people over the head, spray people with water hose, and etc. Strong action by local southern governments meant to intimidated were not successful.It just galvanized the movement. In Iraq Shock and Awe was meant to intimidate. It was meant to show how strong our response could be. Here we are all these years later and it is even worse in Iraq today then it was. Not only are radicals cutting off heads but in the States war fatigue has set in and limits our response. I asked the question early, though not to you. What was the long term goal of Al Quada on 9/11? Was that goal successful or a failure?

Wars are not waged to win battles. Assuming you accept the notion that Al Quada never intended to invade and take over the Inited States what do you believe their motive was for 9/11? Was it any more successful or was it less successful than Shock and Awe in your opinion? I highly recommend Sun Tzu's "the Art of War".

It is childish because the logic of it is not followed through to its full conclusion. The example was battles won in Iraq. We did not go into Iraq to win battles. It is about accomplishing goals in the region. Shock and Awe won battles and showed off our muscle and did nothing to accomplish our goals in the region. It is akin to a basketball player who dribbles between his legs, makes a spin move, elevates over three defenders, but then misses the shot. Perhaps just passing the ball would've been the smarter play. Passing may not be as awesome, doesn't make the player seem as dominating, intimidates zero defenders, but is the right thing do all the same.