Filip Lamparski

Someone is shy

Filip hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Filip Lamparski
Posted over 1 year ago
Debate: Does Ownership Lead to Unnecessary Waste?
You know... I think the Venus Project is some sort of a joke. I mean, they even have a logo in that futuristic sci-fi film villain style. Like Weyland-Yutani. I can see how people become attracted by his ideas: this guy can design! Surely if he rendered pictures of his dream society, it must be possible! Complete resource sharing can only occur if there is no free will. Programs on a computer don't care about which core they like the most, or where in the memory they like to sit, but if you write a truly intelligent and self-aware program, I bet you ten bucks it's going to try to consider some memory addresses and a core or two its property, and will proceed to kick every other process off it. In fact, I'd like to see that step happen in AI research.
Noface
Filip Lamparski
Posted over 1 year ago
Debate: Does Ownership Lead to Unnecessary Waste?
Some things I would not like to share: My computer, my phone, my pants, and oh, a lot of other things that are mine. Computer/phone are access points to server time I'm sharing, but also store a fair share of personal data -- intellectual property, for instance. Yes, sharing certain things should improve the overall efficiency of society, but how to tell people to share? This is the reason communism fails in most cases. Furthermore, we are sharing a lot already. Server time is one such thing. Wireless spectrum, via operators. Air, water. Genetic code. Recycling is also a form sharing. When I recycle something, resources needed for that item are reallocated to something else -- a plastic container, a fake Christmas tree, you name it. I guess what I'm trying to say is that we only truly own something up until it stops being useful or meaningful to us in a long term, or we die, in which case things we own will be redistributed anyway. Therefore abolishing ownership makes no sense.
Noface
Filip Lamparski
Posted over 1 year ago
Do not allow paid political advertising on radio, tv, and internet.
Such test would undermine the principle of universal suffrage, which is one of the things we can safely say democracy got right. Yes, the media in the USA are heavily biased, some towards the crazies (Fox), and some towards the lefties (NBC? Not sure). Yes, they tend to oversimplify. Outright lies? Not so much. They are the news, after all. I totally agree to the statement that the public is not presented with the whole truth by the news. That's what attack ads are for -- to supply the uglier part of truth about the other candidate. Speaking of slander and painting the wrong picture, I think the first ever presidential campaigns in the US featured them rather prominently. So in a way, progress was made since that time.
Noface
Filip Lamparski
Posted over 1 year ago
Do not allow paid political advertising on radio, tv, and internet.
Yes, mass-media is the basis of most people's decision-making process, at leas when it comes to the elections, but to ban political ads? I don't think this is going to work. In the UK, politicians can't really advertise themselves on public TV. The result? Turnouts approaching 40% with a downward trend, because nobody can't be bothered to look the policies up unless somebody shouts them from their TV screen. Attack ads don't necessarily mean the rhetoric is vile and hateful. It is an element of adversarial politics, and because both sides want to top each other and comment on each other's bad ideas, effectively MORE information is getting through, at the same time encouraging public debate.
Noface
Filip Lamparski
Posted over 1 year ago
Are we slaves to the forces that conspire to keep Republicans and Democrats in the United States in a 50/50 stand off?
> My son would tell you that the force that holds us in slavery is STUPIDITY. A little known comedian and economist has that democracy routine wherein he says that the economy is always wobbly "not because the left believes in mandates, or the right believes in markets, but because the centre believes in MAGIC!" Which really is not the best thing to rely on, since it doesn't exist. I'd like to add there is also a group who believes in guns and god (bad mix) who happens to statistically occupy the biggest state in America. And a couple of others -- and my view is that if they were not Christian of any established flavour, you'd decidedly call them extremists. I second your argument about education being a good solution for this problem. However, I think that while it might be a good idea for a school to be a business (my school would be closed down if it couldn't be taken over by another), what happens in some schools in America is outrageous, and colleges/universities are simply there to max out credit cards. Yes, in the UK the situation is getting too similar too quickly, with Nick "I'm Sorry" Clegg aggreeing to vote for tuition fees increase (tripling the maximum, in fact). But America seems to be a prime example of how to screw up education and produce ill-prepared people. Guys, you need a reform. Fast.