2 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

That is a video from an American university and I am sure in average these people are smarter than many others.

Because they go to a University this automatically makes them smart ?

Have you looked at the state of the school system in America ?

22 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

They want to be more than equal.

 

In NZ considering vote for 16 year old, but they can't be conscripted! In the opinion of many- if old enough to vote, old enough to die in a war.

Actually, you'd be interested to find that the "if old enough to vote, old enough to die in a war" movement was actually the main driving force in lowering the voting age in the USA to 18. You'd be even MORE interested to discover that the movement to lower the voting age from 21 to 18 was almost entirely a Republican one post-WWII, with Eisenhower making the case during the State of the Union address in 1954, then eventually being made into a Constitutional Amendment and signed into law by Nixon. The first two states who lowered their voting ages to 18 (during WWII) were Georgia and Kentucky. So it is something Republicans can embrace as one of the social justice initiatives that they were responsible for.

This is what I referred to in my previous posts about the lack of any coherent political philosophy and policy within the Republican Party today. They are more than likely unaware that they were the ones who fought for the right for 18 year-olds to vote and now that this is politically disadvantageous, they're trying to RAISE the voting age! Eisenhower and even Nixon were Republican Conservatives - you could understand their likely leanings on any question of politics based on their philosophy. You can't even do that today, since the policy is whatever nonsense DJT spouted, and that could be diametrically opposite of what he said yesterday. 

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/voting-age-26th-amendment

3 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

That is a video from an American university and I am sure in average these people are smarter than many others. But at the same time they are full of <deleted>. I just watched part of it again: What if someone gets triggered? Do you have an emotional support person here?

What? Are you nuts? 

You've pulled out that video a few times to make your point and I have replied by noting it is young people, in a college in Portland I think, which is possibly the most liberal city in the world next to San Francisco,  and they are training to be social workers and as such have a focus, could be overdoing it, on being sensitive to peoples' needs, wants and peculiarities. I appreciate you are looking to make a point but look at your average community and average activists and see if they fit the same mould as ultra rich famous people or fairly extreme left kids who are finding their way. 

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Do people actually put all that stuff on social media? If so I'm boggled. Even if they hacked this site all they'll get is my e mail address. I'm well aware that everything we put on line is available to be read by people we don't know, and post accordingly.

I've often referenced a past wife on here, but never her name. If someone wanted to read my thousands of posts on here, they could put together a profile, but it wouldn't do them much good.

The things people post online are astonishing. And  no doubt it opens a rich trail for a relented hacker to follow. The level of indiscretion exhibited by mankind at this point in time is hard to believe. 

 

What ever happened to discretion and privacy? 

1 hour ago, seedy said:

Because they go to a University this automatically makes them smart ?

Have you looked at the state of the school system in America ?

Relative smart. Think about all those who don't go to university. And I am sure I don't have to provide any links showing stupid Americans. They have a lot of them over there who are far worse than those in the universities. 

Video from an unaproved source has been removed

7 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

The things people post online are astonishing. And  no doubt it opens a rich trail for a relented hacker to follow. The level of indiscretion exhibited by mankind at this point in time is hard to believe. 

 

What ever happened to discretion and privacy? 

Privacy is dead, and I mourn its loss, but there's no escape from the electronic dragnet unless you go full no contact. I know people who are trying to do that, but only a few I think would have really succeeded because they can't do without e-mail for example. They don't participate in any internet fora, or social media or e-mail or whatever but once it's there, one of the basic rules of physics is that information can't be destroyed. It's becoming pretty difficult to escape except in Hollywood movies.

I discovered for example that by moving back to my home country for a period, there had been so many refinements to the system to serve the vast majority of people that those tiny minority who were outside of that had enormous problems undertaking relatively simple administrative procedures. This is just a consequence of the elimination of the system outliers and inevitable I suppose, but the same sort of thing those people have to go through. Anyone committed and knowledgeable I reckon could find you or (much more easily) I.

14 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

The things people post online are astonishing. And  no doubt it opens a rich trail for a relented hacker to follow. The level of indiscretion exhibited by mankind at this point in time is hard to believe. 

 

What ever happened to discretion and privacy? 

Indeed. It's quite often mentioned on news and such that young people are sending "intimate" photos of their body parts to each other and end up being blackmailed.

Back in the day when I spent a lot of time on the internet I came across a site that dealt exclusively on revenge porn, on which boys rejected by the ex girlfriend posted intimate photos of the ex girlfriend.

Things must have changed a lot since my young days when a request to photograph my girlfriend naked would have resulted in a well deserved slapping.

6 hours ago, JCauto said:

Privacy is dead, and I mourn its loss, but there's no escape from the electronic dragnet unless you go full no contact. I know people who are trying to do that, but only a few I think would have really succeeded because they can't do without e-mail for example. They don't participate in any internet fora, or social media or e-mail or whatever but once it's there, one of the basic rules of physics is that information can't be destroyed. It's becoming pretty difficult to escape except in Hollywood movies.

I discovered for example that by moving back to my home country for a period, there had been so many refinements to the system to serve the vast majority of people that those tiny minority who were outside of that had enormous problems undertaking relatively simple administrative procedures. This is just a consequence of the elimination of the system outliers and inevitable I suppose, but the same sort of thing those people have to go through. Anyone committed and knowledgeable I reckon could find you or (much more easily) I.

Agreed, but it's always my philosophy when putting anything on here, to consider if I want a spotty geek to read it. If I care enough to not want said spotty geek reading it I don't put it on line.

I don't use anything like tok tick, facethingy or such like, so my exposure is limited to things that are of no use to anyone ( or machine ) looking to exploit me, eg for targeted advertising.

Do people that use cards to pay for such as clothes, shoes, groceries then get assaulted by internet advertising? I did notice long ago, that after I posted about travel on a certain site, pop up ads on that site then appeared about the country I mentioned. Happily such ads are no longer a problem for me.

6 hours ago, JCauto said:

Privacy is dead, and I mourn its loss, but there's no escape from the electronic dragnet unless you go full no contact. I know people who are trying to do that, but only a few I think would have really succeeded because they can't do without e-mail for example.

One of my neighbours has no computer, never had a computer, doesn't want a computer and is a happier chap than I for it. He doesn't even go to the library for e mails ( probably doesn't know what an e mail is ).

After every problem I experience with my computer experience I tell him how much I envy him.

 

To be honest, if I could go back to 2001 I'd never buy that first computer that gave me access to the great and extremely addictive internet, and consider myself better off for it.

Me thinks the OP is asking if any one of us might like to become just another suffragette.

 

 

The answer is no.

 

There is no point in activism these days.

There is too much concentration of power, these days.

It's pointless.

 

Gone are the days when Nim Chimpsky thought that activism might make a difference.

 

Noam Chomsky is old.

Noam hasn't a clue about how the real world works, these days, I think.

 

Just look at the guy...for example:

 

 

 

Personally, I do love Chomsky.

 

However, his views are, from the looks of him, far over the hill and through the woods to grandmother's house.

 

He is still sharp as a tack, true.

But, his political views are now outdated.

He is living in a world of his own, back in 1968.

 

It is not that Chomsky was not smart, and not that Chomsky is still not smart.

It's just his perspective on the world that is no longer valid.

And, he keeps spouting the same old things, which may still be valid.

 

Maybe, perhaps, Chomsky is just a hopeless romantic.

 

And, no, activism of the type that worked in the 1960s will not work, these days.

 

In case you are wondering what Chomsky once was like..., and what debate once was like....

 

 

 

 

35 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Me thinks the OP is asking if any one of us might like to become just another suffragette.

 

 

The answer is no.

 

There is no point in activism these days.

There is too much concentration of power, these days.

It's pointless.

 

Gone are the days when Nim Chimpsky thought that activism might make a difference.

 

Noam Chomsky is old.

Noam hasn't a clue about how the real world works, these days, I think.

 

Just look at the guy...for example:

 

 

 

Personally, I do love Chomsky.

 

However, his views are, from the looks of him, far over the hill and through the woods to grandmother's house.

 

He is still sharp as a tack, true.

But, his political views are now outdated.

He is living in a world of his own, back in 1968.

 

It is not that Chomsky was not smart, and not that Chomsky is still not smart.

It's just his perspective on the world that is no longer valid.

And, he keeps spouting the same old things, which may still be valid.

 

Maybe, perhaps, Chomsky is just a hopeless romantic.

 

And, no, activism of the type that worked in the 1960s will not work, these days.

 

In case you are wondering what Chomsky once was like..., and what debate once was like....

Your post is replete with contradictions like Chomsky's views are outdated but may still be relevant.

 

Chomsky is old but still sharp.

 

Overall, just plain ageist. I would have expected better from you. It seems that deep thinking doesn't necessarily produce deep thought.

Edited November 26, 20223 yr by ozimoron

39 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Your post is replete with contradictions like Chomsky's views are outdated but may still be relevant.

 

Chomsky is old but still sharp.

 

Overall, just plain ageist. I would have expected better from you. It seems that deep thinking doesn't necessarily produce deep thought.

As I stated, I love Chomsky. 

 

My only complaint is that he too much underestimates the power of human behavior. 

 

For example, Chomsky's hypothesis concerning the evolutionary origin of human language is preposterous. 

 

Likewise, Chomsky seems to say that human behavior is mostly the result of environment, which is also quite nutty! 

 

In other words, Chomsky will go to his grave with the misunderstanding that we are some higher order of animal, rather than what we truly are, which is not much more than just another Nim Chimpsky with the gift of gab. 

 

Anyway, Chomsky's thinking about the evolution of human language, meaning its origins, is full of baloney. 

 

And, unless one understands this, then can one also have any good understanding of the potential for radically changing human behavior beyond what you might expect from any old Nim Chimpsky? 

 

I think not. 

 

 

7 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

As I stated, I love Chomsky. 

 

My only complaint is that he too much underestimates the power of human behavior. 

 

For example, Chomsky's hypothesis concerning the evolutionary origin of human language is preposterous. 

I'm not really familiar with that theory of his but I am very interested in linguistics. A couple of sentences summarising his claim would be appreciated but don't feel obliged.

 

7 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

Likewise, Chomsky seems to say that human behavior is mostly the result of environment, which is also quite nutty! 

I would think that human behaviour is largely a result of environment but also very much a product of a person's genetic makeup. For example, red states vs blue states in the US and religious adherence affecting bevaviour are cases in point. For the genetic argument, narcissism and sociopathy are generally regarded as clinically observable these days.

 

7 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

In other words, Chomsky will go to his grave with the misunderstanding that we are some higher order of animal, rather than what we truly are, which is not much more than just another Nim Chimpsky with the gift of gab. 

I would agree with you here but question whether Chomsky does believe in the spirituality of humans vs animals.

 

7 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

Anyway, Chomsky's thinking about the evolution of human language, meaning its origins, is full of baloney. 

 

And, unless one understands this, then can one also have any good understanding of the potential for radically changing human behavior beyond what you might expect from any old Nim Chimpsky? 

 

I think not.

Your argument is demeaned by the use of an epithet to slur Chomsky.

"Across the country, openly carrying a gun in public is no longer just an exercise in self-defense — increasingly it is a soapbox for elevating one’s voice and, just as often, quieting someone else’s," The New York Times reported Saturday. 

 

A partisan divide — with Democrats largely eschewing firearms and Republicans embracing them — has warped civic discourse.

 

Deploying the Second Amendment in service of the First has become a way to buttress a policy argument, a sort of silent, if intimidating, bullhorn."

 

https://www.rawstory.com/armed-protesters/

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

Your post is replete with contradictions like Chomsky's views are outdated but may still be relevant.

 

Chomsky is old but still sharp.

 

Overall, just plain ageist. I would have expected better from you. It seems that deep thinking doesn't necessarily produce deep thought.

I did not say that Chomsky is relevant, these days. 

 

What I said above was that many of the things Chomsky stated concerning political activism were valid in the past, and are still valid today... Many but not All. 

 

The world today is not the world of the mid-1960s at MIT, for sure. 

 

There are no contradictions in my comment above. 

 

Our world continues to evolve. But Chomsky Thought has remained the same for many years. 

 

By the way, Chomsky has a memory any elephant would give her right tusk for. 

 

Also, Chomsky comes from Philly and attended Penn as an undergrad. So, what's not to like? 

 

Chomsky is my brother from the city of brotherly love. He's not a God, but just a brother. 

 

 

43 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

My only complaint is that he too much underestimates the power of human behavior.

Here is the basis of human behavior - no matter how you dress it up, put it in a tux, educate it, try and refine it, ...

 

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Do people that use cards to pay for such as clothes, shoes, groceries then get assaulted by internet advertising?

I always think it's funny when I just bought a product online and then for a couple of days I see advertisement for exactly that product. I wish there would be a box "don't bother, I bought it already"

13 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I'm not really familiar with that theory of his but I am very interested in linguistics. A couple of sentences summarising his claim would be appreciated but don't feel obliged.

 

I would think that human behaviour is largely a result of environment but also very much a product of a person's genetic makeup. For example, red states vs blue states in the US and religious adherence affecting bevaviour are cases in point. For the genetic argument, narcissism and sociopathy are generally regarded as clinically observable these days.

 

I would agree with you here but question whether Chomsky does believe in the spirituality of humans vs animals.

 

Your argument is demeaned by the use of an epithet to slur Chomsky.

I am a big fan of Chomsky. 

 

Have you had the time to watch Chomsky's presentation at Google, Talks at Google? 

 

During one of his presentations, he argues his hypothesis concerning the evolution of human speech. 

 

To paraphrase, he seems to argue that speech originated first as an internal dialogue with the self before becoming an external means of expression between individuals. 

 

Check it out! 

 

I am sure I am unable to give his hypothesis justice on my 8-year-old Samsung phone using just my index finger. 

 

I love Chomsky, but Chomsky does not give enough importance to facets of human behavior which are, indeed, immutable. 

 

Chomsky brings us a message of hope that ills in society, even eventual self-destruction of humanity, can be ameliorated and avoided through education and superficial changes in our environment. This is the old nature vs nurture argument. 

 

But, basically, Chomsky is just another Philly rabbi. Full of hope, he is, unfortunately, short on reality. 

 

You might even say that Chomsky is one of the greatest religious figures of our time, even though I have no doubt that he is an atheist. 

 

 

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

It seems that deep thinking doesn't necessarily produce deep thought.

It requires a quality brain.

32 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

"Across the country, openly carrying a gun in public is no longer just an exercise in self-defense — increasingly it is a soapbox for elevating one’s voice and, just as often, quieting someone else’s," The New York Times reported Saturday. 

 

A partisan divide — with Democrats largely eschewing firearms and Republicans embracing them — has warped civic discourse.

 

Deploying the Second Amendment in service of the First has become a way to buttress a policy argument, a sort of silent, if intimidating, bullhorn."

 

https://www.rawstory.com/armed-protesters/

Americans - nuff said.

21 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

It requires a quality brain.

Unfortunately, true genius is limited to so few. 

 

Some have it, but most do not, as you have informed us in one of your unforgettable comments/topics this year of 2022. 

 

Am I right? 

 

Did you or did you not discuss your genius in a topic at sometime this year? 

 

So anyway, in your view, what is the difference between Deep Learning and Deep Thinking? 

 

Or, in other words, would you say that machine intelligence, someday soon, will be equivalent to human intelligence? 

 

Are neurons essentially equivalent to transistors? 

 

And, if this is the case, how many transistors are you operating on?

 

Are you convinced that you are entirely conscious? Or, do you just think that you might be experiencing true consciousness? 

 

Is what you think you see really reality? And, if it were not, then how would you know? 

 

Are you able to design an experiment which proves that you are nothing more than an Avatar in the metaverse? 

 

Yes, I thought not. 

 

3 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Unfortunately, true genius is limited to so few. 

 

Some have it, but most do not, as you have informed us in one of your unforgettable comments/topics this year of 2022. 

 

Am I right? 

 

Did you or did you not discuss your genius in a topic at sometime this year? 

 

So anyway, in your view, what is the difference between Deep Learning and Deep Thinking? 

 

Or, in other words, would you say that machine intelligence, someday soon, will be equivalent to human intelligence? 

 

Are neurons essentially equivalent to transistors? 

 

And, if this is the case, how many transistors are you operating on?

 

Are you convinced that you are entirely conscious? Or, do you just think that you might be experiencing true consciousness? 

 

Is what you think you see really reality? And, if it were not, then how would you know? 

 

Are you able to design an experiment which proves that you are nothing more than an Avatar in the metaverse? 

 

Yes, I thought not. 

 

The title of this video is a little strange. But you can learn a lot about AI.

 

 

5 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

The title of this video is a little strange. But you can learn a lot about AI.

 

 

Incredible! 

 

Such an informative video. 

 

Reminds me of the public service advertisements of yore:

 

This is what your brain is like on acid. 

 

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Indeed. It's quite often mentioned on news and such that young people are sending "intimate" photos of their body parts to each other and end up being blackmailed.

Back in the day when I spent a lot of time on the internet I came across a site that dealt exclusively on revenge porn, on which boys rejected by the ex girlfriend posted intimate photos of the ex girlfriend.

Things must have changed a lot since my young days when a request to photograph my girlfriend naked would have resulted in a well deserved slapping.

I think good judgment and discrimination in regard to one's actions has gone out the window. Social media is at least partly to blame. When one considers the tiny amount of good and interesting information found on it, compared to the amount of poison, negativity, revenge culture, bragging, nonsense, and hate, it is fairly easy to conclude that Twitter, Instagram, and Tiktok are highly destructive forces within popular contemporary culture. They are extremely toxic.

 

Facebook to some extent too, but it does seem to have some value in connecting people. Just my rather strong opinion! 

No we dont

I think we are all activists.

I have bygone values because that was the best western world i knew and think Thailand is closer to them than the west.

Others on here are at the cutting edge fighting for tomorrows rights to be the most advanced people in the world.

Each to their own which in most cases ends in agreeing to disagree.

I'm fine with Qatar holding the world cup,it's a sporting event. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

I think good judgment and discrimination in regard to one's actions has gone out the window. Social media is at least partly to blame. When one considers the tiny amount of good and interesting information found on it, compared to the amount of poison, negativity, revenge culture, bragging, nonsense, and hate, it is fairly easy to conclude that Twitter, Instagram, and Tiktok are highly destructive forces within popular contemporary culture. They are extremely toxic.

 

Facebook to some extent too, but it does seem to have some value in connecting people. Just my rather strong opinion! 

For people like us, mostly not so young men in this forum I agree with you.

But it seems many teenagers basically have to follow social media.

There is a party somewhere, it's on social media.

Someone discovered something about a teacher - social media.

Everybody talks about your stupid shirt from yesterday - social media.

No school tomorrow - social media.

I guess no school kid wants to ask the other kids constantly: What is going on, tell me, my father told me social media is bad...

 

Do I like it? No. But I guess most teenagers can't avoid it if they don't want to live in another world than the rest of the kids.

Social media - just like everything else people find in life.

Politics - Religion - etc.

Take what you want from it, use it, ignore the rest.

All this Doom and Gloom people P and M about - all that is - is they way you look at it, and making judgements about how and why other people do what they do on it.

Live your Life - Let others Live Theirs. The Second is no business of the First.

 

On 11/25/2022 at 5:03 PM, BritManToo said:

Engineering degree ........... check

Postgrad .......... check

Learned to read and write central Thai ...... check

Work with rural folk in Nakon Nowhere ......... not for anything.

 

But I have put two rural girls through high school and University using my own money.

Now working on high school for number three.

 

How much of your own money have you spent on Thai people?

Or are you just here working for the NGO wage and lifestyle? 

Gotta love the 'activists' that spend other people's money.

Sounds like you are doing genuinely good things and have a bit of pride and happiness from that. Helping people who would not otherwise get ahead. Sounds like a left leaning thing.  You say you are a Marxist, which is clearly to the left, but make blanket criticism of the left which you assume are woke and therefore apparently insincere. Contradictions.