Spring RTS Engine

That's a cool video. I didn't know about people finding the tear drop shaped stone beautiful, but I have blue-green earrings in that shape.

The evolutionary explanation that he gave was pretty simplified, but alright. He talked about peacocks finding mates based on feathers, but not all birds operate like that. Turkeys could be attracted to another turkey head on a stick. It doesn't have to have any other parts to it and it would still find it attractive. Humans, on the other hand, can have a large variety of things or features that they find to be attractive. However, studies have shown that across cultures waist to hip ratio tends to be a big factor in determining attractiveness in women with a smaller waist and more rounded hips being better.

Although it was a very interesting talk, something bothered me about it but i couldn't put my finger on it:
Was it that I had already seen this talk but can't remember?
Was it some of the historical assumptions made in the talk I don't fully agree with?
Was it because someone was refuting the idea that I can find beauty in whatever I focus my mind on?

And then it hit me:
Does anything he says contradict that beauty is in the eye of the beholder? And is he actually contradicting it? I don't see how it really can be contradicted.

To me personally beauty is partly in a mystery I think I might be able to explain to myself.
even though I realise I often don't succeed when i try.

http://evaziessler.wordpress.com/2010/1 ... ierte-opa/
(German) Japanese Goverment Statistics of old aged Persons revealed to be wrong (long dead grandparents still counted as living) Reason: Pensionpayments continue, as long as a person is not reported dead

http://www.slate.com/id/2279601/
Christopher Hitchens on a impossible mission: To get non-british persons to brew a good cup of tea.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n01/hugh-penni ... ug-affairs

BedBugs, the Return.

http://www.eurozine.com/comp/focalpoint ... swest.html

A list of essays on the freedom of press (and the often ugly reality) in western europe.

http://www.resetdoc.org/story/00000021417
Egyptian Dictator Mubarak gets rid of the democratic show.

http://www.nzzfolio.ch/www/21b625ad-36b ... b2945.aspx
(German)
Report from a asylum.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/24/opini ... opinion%29
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/opinion/28brooks.html
Awards for the best essay of the 2010.

Thats about it.

der-mumifizierte-opa

I wonder if the deceased where ok with this plan before they died.

And it kinda makes me think of this movie

http://www.slate.com/id/2279601/

As long as I can drink mine while still hot, I'll be more than content.

BedBugs

I'm usually amazed by the unawareness by people of the quantity and diversity of life in and around their person,
but must admit I couldn't help developing a few itches while reading this.

http://www.resetdoc.org/story/00000021417

His picture can be seen every so often while travelling the roads. But what does the populous see travelling the electronic roads? ATM it seems to remain pretty feudal, but what do I know?


I think I'll save the rest for later.
To be honest I probably should have been doing other stuff while reading this.
And seeming to be one of very few reading and commenting, kinda diminishes the fun. Don't know if I can keep that up, although I have been appreciating this tread.

Its voluntarily to read this stuff... Firestorm_ but it wouldnt be the same thread without you and panda. Also ordered solid state society because of your link.. always put that off, but after reading the synopsis, got to have that.

I digged through the top-essay list, and found some i read earlier this year, some very good, dont know if i already recommended them, but then, this is a re-re-recommendation.

I found the article on the view on corruption in the middle east very, very enlightening.
http://www.the-american-interest.com/ar ... ?piece=792
Tl,dr;: They percive it as corrupt, if you do not share the wealth you acquired and distribute it into a sort of social debtnetwork. Fascinating is that you can see the very same phenomena in africa at work.


http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ ... hic-future

PicassoCT wrote: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n01/hugh-penni ... ug-affairs

BedBugs, the Return.

I like the bedbugs article. Since medical people don't seem to see them as much more than a nuisance over there, I'd think that people should have some chrysanthemums (C. cinerariifolium and C. coccineum) nearby. Chrysanthemums produce an organic insecticide called pyrethrum that is effective against bedbugs and are native to Europe. The main drawback to it would be an allergic reaction.

Biggest Problem as i see it there, is hotels, were you cant check ever guest for his allergeric charateristics. So back to chemocoil.

http://www.the-american-interest.com/ar ... ?piece=792

Can't remember where, but I heard something similar before:
"Our system isn't corrupt. Corruption is our system."
If people are truly happy with it, then who am I to judge?
But how can a system be secretive and honest at the same time?
Perhaps I'm being Utopian, but I don't see it.

the-demographic-future

For a long time I thought, with help from Asimov,
that earth can hold about 14 billion. After that 'something's gonna give', and extrapolation suggests within this century.
It's looking pretty far ahead (further than the article) so I don't exactly think that any more, but I'm still curious.

http://www.eurozine.com/comp/focalpoint ... swest.html

Bit much to read them all, but lately there indeed seems to be a trend of governments disliking journalism.
I suspect it'll change in a form they're not familiar with.

FireStorm_ wrote:

http://www.eurozine.com/comp/focalpoint ... swest.html

Bit much to read them all, but lately there indeed seems to be a trend of governments disliking journalism.
I suspect it'll change in a form they're not familiar with.

The problem is that goverments dont controll the web entirely and therefore are no longer able to tame journalists, like they used to with newspapers, tv-stations and radio. Sounds funny, but by bashing the old-school journalists, they just forward the cause of the leaking wickid.

tuesdays gone: Here are the left-overs.

PRON:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... re/8327/1/


The hysteria wave has passed, so now its time to turn attention away from some decent wikileaks latecomers.
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/810 ... party-save

Wired (HappyHippoHyperhypnotized as always) calls out another AI-Revolution, it will as every other aiattempt before be a speedrun on easy, and they also will serve cold-fusion as drinks.
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/12/f ... evolution/

Interesting Article in a Pakistani Journal can not be linked, due to technical difficulties. Was a Lament for a murdered politician that tried to abolish a ridiculous anti-blasphemylaw - whose assasin (ironically one of his bodyguards) was on his way to prison celebrated by the masses (with rose petals, how insane can one be?)

http://www.slate.com/id/2280683/

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... lite/8343/
A interesting article on how the global elite today is about to bound together to a nation on there own (feelingwise)
Maybe Diamondage wasnt that wrong on Phyles.

Thats about it.

I think most people already know the internet is an awesome phenomena of data distribution, no matter what the content. But people don't seem to get enough of repeating this in various ways on the medium itself. I think the first 3 articles do this in some degree...
(...and of course I just did so myself )

PRON:

I don't think this article says much about porn; it sooner constitutes as porn.
Guess it is no surprise a long article about sex, becomes rather sexist after the first six paragraph's.
(even made me start guessing the gender of the author, even though I don't want to care about that while reading articles.)
Of course there's no denying history, but the only history lesson the article gives jumps from ancient Sparta to the 1960. How about (and I believe this is written from an American perspective) mention Margaret Sanger. Or talk about contraceptives, or the role of medical science in dealing with std's. I think that plays a more important role in overcoming certain scruples regarding this subject.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/810 ... party-save

I agree with the last sentence of this article.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/12/f ... evolution/

Humans are technology bound for a long time now, and most are part of a system without having consciously chosen to do so. I wouldn't call it AI, though.

http://www.slate.com/id/2280683/

I liked this article most. It didn't waste a lot of words while making a few strong points.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... lite/8343/
I wouldn't call obsession with money elitism, but that's just poor old me.
Or is it?
On a side note, I've often wondered: How trustworthy does a medium of trust has to be?

(and finally I must admit I didn't read theatlantic articles entirely)

PicassoCT wrote:Wired (HappyHippoHyperhypnotized as always) calls out another AI-Revolution, it will as every other aiattempt before be a speedrun on easy, and they also will serve cold-fusion as drinks.
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/12/f ... evolution/

This new AI reminds me of how ant colonies function. I like the robotic bugs!

PicassoCT wrote:http://www.slate.com/id/2280683/

I haven't heard very much about South African politics. I don't think that anyone like Martin Luther King would have survived there. I liked Martin Luther King. We have a holiday coming up for him.:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnwDeZrGCzI

FireStorm_ wrote:

PRON:

I don't think this article says much about porn; it sooner constitutes as porn.
Guess it is no surprise a long article about sex, becomes rather sexist after the first six paragraph's.
(even made me start guessing the gender of the author, even though I don't want to care about that while reading articles.)
Of course there's no denying history, but the only history lesson the article gives jumps from ancient Sparta to the 1960. How about (and I believe this is written from an American perspective) mention Margaret Sanger. Or talk about contraceptives, or the role of medical science in dealing with std's. I think that plays a more important role in overcoming certain scruples regarding this subject.

I think that stds play a big role in overcoming scruples regarding sex-related inhibitions too.

PicassoCT wrote: PRON:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... re/8327/1/

This video is a more optimistic work. I prefer it over that article.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICnlyNUt_0o

The article seems to be overly pessimistic and was possibly written to drum up publicity.

I thougt about it, and i think your point of view is a little overoptimistic, panda.
Its not that wishfull thinking cant warp reality, after all, it worked out for most of the norms of society, and this driving force until death divorce sure can be used to teach the bedbeggars some usefull tricks.
But what if the beauvalue, handed out by nature, driven by that drive , runs out? A hell of ugly mechanisms in society live good from this subconcious fear [that cant be real,wont be happening], the church, lawyers, female social networking and even onetruelove-fairytalemakers even that ridiculous respect shown to some mothers in law.

But taming the source of the driving force, i dont know... thats were things get tricky.
To chose in a perfectly uncaring universe not to care for the mechanism that keeps the comfysoapbubble around oneself stable, expand or shrink it- or even let it collaps, thats basically even lying to oneself. Sure its a cheasy way out of the responsibility that would come with that: "We breed man into wishfullfillment creatures, but then they chopped down the whole forrest to built ikea-shelves, fought wars to get cars, those monsters driven by hunger for destruction. I wonder whats wage is driving them forward, in this neverending rage?"

Here is a good time to exit reality with faulty selffullfilling looplogic like: "I have a good feeling about this, its is sooo true because my feeling tells that too."

I concluded for myself that one can not change a society (by adding small widgets to it) without accepting every attached mechanism, every single wheel, gear and string.

@Firestorm: Relating to usefull mechanisms beeing not AI. I think you are wrong here. What you see in animals, bascially are, simpler neural mechanisms at work, bundled together. Just try it out if you visit a farm. For example, if you approach a cow, there is a line in here line of sight, that directs the line she will attempt to run away from you. (Not bulls, not already tamed cows) Its basically a simple avoid mechanism (that gets overruled by the cows social mechanisms, but is small widget like machinery. Shepards controll there flocks by using that run-away-mechanism through trained dogs.

@Picasso, regarding 'AI'
I think I get what you mean.

Before I reformulate what has been said many many times before, I thought of quoting someone who has said it quite recently on this forum:

Trademark wrote:its just the next step in our evolution, everything is meant to create networks one way or another: after a few thousands of years of internet, people will start to act like a brain cell: they are fucking dumb and impatient, but together they can create something really awesome by using their impatience as a fuel.

(from here:http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.ph ... 93#p465393)

So, what I mean to say is, that IMO the term AI doesn't properly describe what's going on in respect to our evolution. (not after a few thousands of years, but right now.)

I used to see humans and robots as separate things.
(I've read a lot of Asimov , where robots are often portrayed as servants becoming equals.)
But now I think humankind and "robotkind" are more or less fused together, and I doubt there is still an important role for the humanoid robot.

To me AI has become a rather indefinable thing, and human culture is saturated with many different kinds of 'AI', fictional and by striving for it in the real world.

Get what I mean? or does it seem i'm contradicting myself?

Yes, i think so. Its quite a good point.

Let me try to repeat that in my own words. Basically you argue, that AI is a now unprecise, outdated word (like using the word gramophon for a mp3player) which leads to wrong conclusions (Every Mp3-Collector is a Record Company, holding thousands of songs)

Maybe i read to much SciFI were AI was celebrated as the biggest success or demon of humanity, its funn were you get your expactations from.

yeah. Whatever the next step in evolution is (and that tree always branches widely), I think THAT can be considered AI.
And since evolution is a natural process, it seems strange to me to call it artificial.
But (and especially when we've both read a lot of scifi ) we're probably just discussing semantics.

Also:
It took me quite a while to realise what you guys where actually saying (Panda with the video and Picasso replying.)
I think a two person relationship isn't really in contest with a more bohemian variant. To me a two person relationship is more a rural thing, and in an urban environment people seem to be engaged more quickly in more complicated relationships, or various ones.
I think the size of the social network one is in plays an important role in what somebody prefers.

PicassoCT wrote:I thougt about it, and i think your point of view is a little overoptimistic, panda.
Its not that wishfull thinking cant warp reality, after all, it worked out for most of the norms of society, and this driving force until death divorce sure can be used to teach the bedbeggars some usefull tricks.
But what if the beauvalue, handed out by nature, driven by that drive , runs out? A hell of ugly mechanisms in society live good from this subconcious fear [that cant be real,wont be happening], the church, lawyers, female social networking and even onetruelove-fairytalemakers even that ridiculous respect shown to some mothers in law.

But taming the source of the driving force, i dont know... thats were things get tricky.
To chose in a perfectly uncaring universe not to care for the mechanism that keeps the comfysoapbubble around oneself stable, expand or shrink it- or even let it collaps, thats basically even lying to oneself. Sure its a cheasy way out of the responsibility that would come with that: "We breed man into wishfullfillment creatures, but then they chopped down the whole forrest to built ikea-shelves, fought wars to get cars, those monsters driven by hunger for destruction. I wonder whats wage is driving them forward, in this neverending rage?"

Here is a good time to exit reality with faulty selffullfilling looplogic like: "I have a good feeling about this, its is sooo true because my feeling tells that too."

I concluded for myself that one can not change a society (by adding small widgets to it) without accepting every attached mechanism, every single wheel, gear and string.

"To crush your enemies -- See them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women!" -Conan the Barbarian

Yes, I know that that there are guys out there who are power hungry, very aggressive, and want to subjugate women and that there are also guys who are sexist against men and man-hating women. Plus, guys tend to get into physical fights more often than women do while women are more likely to engage in verbal attacks. Aggression (But not necessarily so much in a male dominating a female sense.) is present in all people to differing degrees at different times for various reasons, and some people are more aggressive than others.

What about all of those people who don't follow all of the common norms attributed to specific genders? What about gay people? The Romans used to encourage homosexuality in the military and there was a lot of those related behaviors occurring then. That gross emperor Caligula also preferred to do freaky things to young boys instead of women. I really don't think that homosexuals are all that uncommon. Society just doesn't often like to address that issue. You only ever really hear about them in history when they are the leaders of great empires and even then they might not be openly gay. Then there's the unusual circumstance of a female leader like Queen Victoria because female dominated societies are rare. I bet she knew some helpful men and women.

I know that I'm not a guy and don't really know exactly what guys are thinking (For example, I don't have the ability to engage in what is usually thought of as a "man conversation" as Forb and a lot of other traditional guys put it.), but these exceptions make it seem as though the author of this article is exaggerating the prevalence of the thought processes and events associated with his or her description of the man and woman in this article even though that kind of thing does happen more often than most people would like to admit.

Lets meet half-way, you are to optimistic, and im a cynic, somewhere in the middle mankind lingers.

Not related to discussion but interesting:
http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/08/google-mojo/
TechCrunch foretells of Googles decline.
http://pocketnow.com/android/android-30 ... ed-reality
Google dosent tell what is has up its sleeves.
http://www.businessinsider.com/tech-flo ... exus-one-1

But still holds 4 of 15 techflops.

PicassoCT wrote:http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ ... hic-future

Registration Required: Log in to continue reading

PicassoCT wrote:Wired (HappyHippoHyperhypnotized as always) calls out another AI-Revolution, it will as every other aiattempt before be a speedrun on easy, and they also will serve cold-fusion as drinks.
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/12/f ... evolution/

ÔÇ£If you told somebody in 1978, ÔÇÿYouÔÇÖre going to have this machine, and youÔÇÖll be able to type a few words and instantly get all of the worldÔÇÖs knowledge on that topic,ÔÇÖ they would probably consider that to be AI,ÔÇØ Google cofounder Larry Page says.

Not yet serving cold fusion, when you think about it, there's indeed been some progress. But, like I said in the past, whenever a problem previously too hard for IA becomes solveable by IA, then people go say that's "it's not real intelligence".