Yes, we should aspire to a murder rate seen only in the asteroid belt and other places uninhabited by humans. Recreating those circumstances would temporarily raise the homicide rate in a given year but it would drop to 0 in the next.
I think there's more to it than that. The book proposes a return to a classical rational-modern worldview with typical liberal values ("Enlightenment"). That optimistic view of the future would be one way out of the tribalist identity politics that, fueled by fear, are ruining Western society. There are big power interests, both financial and cultural, that are interested in stability. Pushing Pinker's book is more than just marketing.
Tribalist identity politics are inevitable in all multicultural societies. You can bemoan human nature, but you can't change it.
That's not to say multicultural societies can't be successful, with discipline and genius it can be done. For example Lee Kuan Yew (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew) did a great job with Singapore.
So that we understand you better - what exactly are you proposing as the mechanism of these power interests pushing this book? Are you suggesting there are specific people who are actively pushing this book, who are not directly tied to the marketing of the book? Or that are directly tied, but since they are "power interests" or some such, they are trying harder than they do marketing other books?
I mean, I think you're wrong. But more than that, I think you're not saying something well-defined. What does it mean that "cultural power interests that are interested in stability" (paraphrased) are pushing the book in a way that's more than just marketing? Who exactly is doing this? Is this coordinated? Is this more than just "some people like this book so are talking about it", which is a much more innocuous way to phrase that?
what exactly are you proposing as the mechanism of these power interests pushing this book?
> slating for reviews, inclusion on top lists, discussions on television shows, interviews with author etc.
Are you suggesting there are specific people who are actively pushing this book, who are not directly tied to the marketing of the book?
> yes
since they are "power interests" or some such
> Are you suggesting that power is not a legitimate criterion of social analysis? Just to understand the quotations
What does it mean that "cultural power interests that are interested in stability" (paraphrased) are pushing the book in a way that's more than just marketing?
> It means they are doing it because they don't care about the sales, they care about the message being spread widely.
I'm not saying it's coordinated. I'm not saying it's some sort of conspiracy. But yeah, it's clearly more than "some people like this book"
The quotes around "power interests" is because you used the term and I was quoting you directly, it's not a phrase I would personally use.
Assuming it's not coordinated or a conspiracy, how is it different than "some people like this book"? I mean this sincerely - I really don't understand why people liking this book and talking about it doesn't completely explain what we're seeing. That's what explains pretty much every other book that people talk about a lot, which is a lot of books.
Meta: This is just an FYI, but I'm pretty sure the standard way of quoting and answering a previous comment is to put the original text after the ">", and the reply or whatever else you want to write without the ">". The way you did it is the reverse of this, and kinda makes your comment hard to parse.
Wow. That's truly pinpointing it! "Between 5k and 8m years from now." If you're willing to accept "between 100 and 10b years from now", it's not-quantitatively-but-qualitatively equivalent to any living human but even better odds, I'd put them at 99.9%.
Business models are very well defined. The online business models are product/service sales, subscription, retail, commission, advertising and digital licensing.
The pitch types listed are a good start, but are neither mutually exclusive, nor wholly exhaustive.
I don't find Doctorow 'less offensive' because I honestly didn't consider talks by RMS to be offensive at all, rather they were just a bit eccentric because he would go off on tangents about what might happen if we didn't align with his views, it felt a bit like an arrogant begrudged rant.
But now we see bills like SOPA and ProtectIP, and now we already have computers that you can't run any program you want on it, and all these other stories hinting that there are companies out there as sinister as RMS suggested. I find RMS less and less eccentric with each of these things that comes to light.
It's easier to write off RMS's eccentricities when you already agree with his message. It is also easier to write off his message because of his eccentricities if you don't. Yes, it is ad hominem, but it happens.
That said, RMS has been able to get attention. Whether we would be in a better place with an "normal" RMS is impossible to say. Maybe having both Doctorow and RMS is critical to the fight.
I apologise in advance for a lack luster comment, but seeing incompetence on so many levels like this on a monthly basis from financial institutions makes me want to be sick.
This is like putting a sign out the front of your house saying please do not enter though the back window, it's open.
I look at this as a good thing. I know that if I am ever injured in such a way as to receive severe brain damage, I'll still be able to get a high-paying programming job.
Then there is more behind as we think. Actually we can be pretty sure someone on the web team will have pointed out that this is not good and insecure.
After seeing this i kind of get the idea why this url is in the wild.
Yikes, I wonder if that's how it was discovered in the first place. I'm no pen tester, but that's probably the first thing I would check on a target website.
If anyone happens to lose money through this vulnerability I think that provides enough evidence to make AMEX knowingly culpable.
Without that, this is just run-of-the-mill incompetence. But the Disallow: /us/admin/ indicates that they knew that URL was wide open, and failed to act.
