If Machines Produce Everything...

Forums › Off topic › If Machines Produce Everything...

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

Mad Scientist
29762 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1407675 16-Oct-2015 10:32

And the smarter than human machines we create will want to coexist with us- why would they?

MikeAqua

7779 posts

Uber Geek

#1407731 16-Oct-2015 11:07

Why do people assume that AI will turn nasty?

It's common theme in fiction because it makes for an interesting plot.

Most unethical human behaviour arises from some sort of greed i.e. an obsessive desire for wealth, sex or power.

If an AI doesn't have those desires, what is it's motive to go all SkyNet on us?

Mike

Batman

Mad Scientist
29762 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1407749 16-Oct-2015 11:22

No they are created incorrupt of course.

But nothing is incorruptible. If Mr Kim, Mr Putin, Mr Abbas, Mr Al Baghdt gets his hands on one of those, AI will be given the authority to make corrupt decisions, and naturally, that's the beginning of the end.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1407755 16-Oct-2015 11:32

MikeAqua: Why do people assume that AI will turn nasty?

It's common theme in fiction because it makes for an interesting plot.

Most unethical human behaviour arises from some sort of greed i.e. an obsessive desire for wealth, sex or power.

If an AI doesn't have those desires, what is it's motive to go all SkyNet on us?

Eh?
AI self-producing machines starting point will be to provide for their creators/owners an increase in wealth and power - those very human behaviours that you've deemed to be "unethical" aka "greed". That's the whole purpose of them. Greed is good. When it's deemed "excessive" it's just jealousy expressed by losers in the race for more, who seek to stifle innovation by leveling the playing field.

TheWinterDragon

44 posts

Geek

#1408468 18-Oct-2015 00:45

Matt Dalio - https://endlessm.com/

this is my response.

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1408478 18-Oct-2015 03:15

I've read the entire thread, and there has been some isolated posters that cause me to think there is some hope for this world, but for the most part what struck me most was a singular lack of imagination, and a dogged determination to stick to the tropes and ideologies they are saturated with.

A few points I think of:

1. There is no doubt that machines will replace all human labor. You may argue all you like that new jobs will become available for us, but that argument is flawed: if a machine can do your job, and anyone elses, it will also do any NEW job. Any argument to the contrary is ultimately an argument for Vitalism - a concept thoroughly debunked during the Victorian age.

2. Insane conjecture about machines making us slaves or wiping us out are puerile. Much of the power from these machines will come (at first) from them enhancing existing human abilities. These enhancements will expand. Eventually, there will be no clear delineation between man and machine. Prosthetics for your mind. Eventually though, they will be too complex for the standard human brain to interact with. But hopefully by then your mind will have already been transferred to better hardware...

3. Wealth distribution. This is perhaps where I have just seen some of the most slavish, laughable arguments in the whole thread. Any argument that relies on an ad-hoc enhancement to current pseudo-economic 'management' is as laughable as Creationists trying to explain away fossils or 10,000 year old bristle cone pines.

Most of us though will be happy to live in perfect health for an indefinite period of time, our lives powered by the Sun, our needs seen to via semi-intelligent machines that you made with your advanced 3d printer from plans off the Net.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1408495 18-Oct-2015 07:46

Brendan: I've read the entire thread, and there has been some isolated posters that cause me to think there is some hope for this world, but for the most part what struck me most was a singular lack of imagination, and a dogged determination to stick to the tropes and ideologies they are saturated with.

A few points I think of:

1. There is no doubt that machines will replace all human labor. You may argue all you like that new jobs will become available for us, but that argument is flawed: if a machine can do your job, and anyone elses, it will also do any NEW job. Any argument to the contrary is ultimately an argument for Vitalism - a concept thoroughly debunked during the Victorian age.

2. Insane conjecture about machines making us slaves or wiping us out are puerile. Much of the power from these machines will come (at first) from them enhancing existing human abilities. These enhancements will expand. Eventually, there will be no clear delineation between man and machine. Prosthetics for your mind. Eventually though, they will be too complex for the standard human brain to interact with. But hopefully by then your mind will have already been transferred to better hardware...

3. Wealth distribution. This is perhaps where I have just seen some of the most slavish, laughable arguments in the whole thread. Any argument that relies on an ad-hoc enhancement to current pseudo-economic 'management' is as laughable as Creationists trying to explain away fossils or 10,000 year old bristle cone pines.

Most of us though will be happy to live in perfect health for an indefinite period of time, our lives powered by the Sun, our needs seen to via semi-intelligent machines that you made with your advanced 3d printer from plans off the Net.

Interesting post. But there is no real need to cut down every opinion stated that does not agree with your opinion, with insults to the previous posters intelligence, and note , what you say is merely your opinion.

You have provided detail in points 1 and 2, great, but why not 3? I am interested to read your detail for point 3.

Tradepub

Free professional, reference and technical white papers (affiliate link).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1408527 18-Oct-2015 10:42

Brendan:

2. Insane conjecture about machines making us slaves or wiping us out are puerile. Much of the power from these machines will come (at first) from them enhancing existing human abilities. These enhancements will expand. Eventually, there will be no clear delineation between man and machine. Prosthetics for your mind. Eventually though, they will be too complex for the standard human brain to interact with. But hopefully by then your mind will have already been transferred to better hardware...

I'm curious as to how you can dismiss conjecture as insane, then conjecture to the point of "prediction" about how you think it will happen.
Perhaps you've missed the point about AI - where rather than being extensions of ourselves, bionics etc, more in the nature of tools, then the machines could be making what we might call moral choices.

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1408944 19-Oct-2015 02:14

tdgeek:

Interesting post. But there is no real need to cut down every opinion stated that does not agree with your opinion,

Possibly, but I see the same dogmatic arguments being made again and again and it is annoying. Note also it was the ARGUMENTS I criticized, not the person themselves. I may have been less than obvious in my meaning I concede. I apologise for any hurt feelings.

You have provided detail in points 1 and 2, great, but why not 3? I am interested to read your detail for point 3.

The post was getting too long. I've noted that people do not read long posts. Simple as that.

I'll expand on it a little:

The current economic system is both flawed in design and flawed in execution. It is essentially a shell game, and entirely artificial artifact. If it was a piece of software it'd be malware. When people say it works, what they really mean is that it's failure modes haven't affected them personally. It's flaws are exploited daily to the cost of us all by powerful players, and as a system of resource management it is abysmal and even lethal.

I do not have a fully thought out replacement idea in mind.

What I do have is a set of thought experiments, and interesting questions - few of which have ever been answered properly.

1. what happens to an economy where all material goods, and most non-material goods, are available for free? The rapid advance of 3d printers and their falling costs are simply the beginning. What if you could download designs for solar panels from the Net, and print them out? Power your own house? What if everyone does? What about a car? A house? And later, with further advances, even your own body parts? (They have already done it in the lab).
What if most of your needs could be provided from a box on your bench? It's not science fiction, it's already started.

2. How does government function when the existing levers of power (taxes, laws, etc) become unenforceable due to no/not enough tax money coming in? How will society govern itself? Anarchy? Some form of collectivism? Why?

3. Is it better for the natural environment? On the one hand, there will be all sorts of recycling. That carbon we've been pumping out for a century will become a valuable resource. On the other hand, resources are still limited. Technology will allow an explosive expansion of human lifetimes and energy demands. What do we do with the waste heat?

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1408945 19-Oct-2015 03:13

Fred99:
Brendan:

2. Insane conjecture about machines making us slaves or wiping us out are puerile. Much of the power from these machines will come (at first) from them enhancing existing human abilities. These enhancements will expand. Eventually, there will be no clear delineation between man and machine. Prosthetics for your mind. Eventually though, they will be too complex for the standard human brain to interact with. But hopefully by then your mind will have already been transferred to better hardware...

I'm curious as to how you can dismiss conjecture as insane, then conjecture to the point of "prediction" about how you think it will happen.

I always applaud curiosity. It's the beginning of wisdom they say.

The mistake you make is in assuming all conjecture is defined as the same content and therefore criticisms of one equally applies to others.

1. Boringly predictable imaginings like 'the robots will take over' have been about since the 1950's and I find them all to be less than likely because they pre-suppose a level of incompetence that would preclude the ability to construct them in the first place. Furthermore, it is more efficient to co-operate than it is to compete.

2. Why would a race of machines waste their time fighting with us, instead of simply transferring themselves to an environment we don't want that happens to have a trillion times our resources? The argument is equivalent of claiming you would fight a 3 year old over a muddy puddle in the drive way.

3. The quickest way for us to develop AI is to duplicate the workings of our own brains, and before that some animal brains. They will be no more capable than we will be. After that, we will want AI super intelligence. We could just emulate several minds in a large computer; or perhaps run them at a faster speed. But that will only give us answers we could have gotten ourselves, but faster. Useful though.

Better QUALITY of thought is the real key. Better pattern recognition, better memory, more parallelism. Hyper-dimensional information that can be used directly without conversion loss. Oh, I'm sure it'll happen but unless we design it to be a psychopath, it would simply take 2 above I think. Why bother fighting over a muddy puddle? If we are lucky, it'll take us along and improve us.

Ignorance breeds violence. Knowledge brings peace. I see no reason to think it's different for smarter entities.

But feel free to tell me why I'm wrong.

Perhaps you've missed the point about AI - where rather than being extensions of ourselves, bionics etc, more in the nature of tools, then the machines could be making what we might call moral choices.

I have not missed your point; you have missed mine.

I think they will have 'morals' (a slippery concept itself) because they will need them in order to understand us and our knowledge, civilization, etc. But a super intelligent AI will likely have morals that we cannot understand because we will not be able to model the future as accurately as it does. It could be dangerous to us; or it could save us all.

This is why I would advocate enhancing our own minds just as we create AI. The two goals are remarkably compatible: technology and discoveries gained from an emulated human mind could easily show us how to enhance a real one - with out anyone dying. New chemicals, better drugs, perhaps even some re-wiring. Expanding our short term memory would enhance a great many things for example. Chips that connect to neurons, crowd sourced strategy optimization. Who knows.

Anyway, it's speculation at present, albeit extrapolated from current trends and achievements.

Recently, scientists have emulated a part of a rat's brain. It behaves identically to the real thing. But it runs on silicon.

Computer vision and recognition now allow driver-less cars. 15 years ago, this required a room full of computers. Google can search images based on the content of an image right there on your laptop. e.g. it can 'see' what it is.

Your smart phone understands the spoken word. Soon it will understand the meaning and context.

I do not wish to get bogged down in petty debates. I did not come here to hold a lecture. I've spent far too much time explaining subjects I thought were pretty self evident and now I am tired. Have fun everyone, and sorry if I was a bit brash.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1409013 19-Oct-2015 09:21

Brendan:
Fred99:
Brendan:

2. Insane conjecture about machines making us slaves or wiping us out are puerile. Much of the power from these machines will come (at first) from them enhancing existing human abilities. These enhancements will expand. Eventually, there will be no clear delineation between man and machine. Prosthetics for your mind. Eventually though, they will be too complex for the standard human brain to interact with. But hopefully by then your mind will have already been transferred to better hardware...

I'm curious as to how you can dismiss conjecture as insane, then conjecture to the point of "prediction" about how you think it will happen.

I always applaud curiosity. It's the beginning of wisdom they say.

The mistake you make is in assuming all conjecture is defined as the same content and therefore criticisms of one equally applies to others.

1. Boringly predictable imaginings like 'the robots will take over' have been about since the 1950's and I find them all to be less than likely because they pre-suppose a level of incompetence that would preclude the ability to construct them in the first place. Furthermore, it is more efficient to co-operate than it is to compete.

That doesn't seem to be how things work in the human world, from either a biological POV (how we evolved) or how our social and economic system operates. The concept that "competition drives innovation" seems to be very well accepted.

Brendan:
2. Why would a race of machines waste their time fighting with us, instead of simply transferring themselves to an environment we don't want that happens to have a trillion times our resources? The argument is equivalent of claiming you would fight a 3 year old over a muddy puddle in the drive way.

3. The quickest way for us to develop AI is to duplicate the workings of our own brains, and before that some animal brains. They will be no more capable than we will be. After that, we will want AI super intelligence. We could just emulate several minds in a large computer; or perhaps run them at a faster speed. But that will only give us answers we could have gotten ourselves, but faster. Useful though.

Better QUALITY of thought is the real key. Better pattern recognition, better memory, more parallelism. Hyper-dimensional information that can be used directly without conversion loss. Oh, I'm sure it'll happen but unless we design it to be a psychopath, it would simply take 2 above I think. Why bother fighting over a muddy puddle? If we are lucky, it'll take us along and improve us.

Ignorance breeds violence. Knowledge brings peace. I see no reason to think it's different for smarter entities.

But feel free to tell me why I'm wrong.

The conditions which make our planet a goldilocks zone for biological life may also make it a goldilocks zone for artificial life. I don't share the optimistic view held by some that resources are unlimited. When two (or more) "devices" seek to use the same limited resource in order to serve their human masters, then how are they going to decide to "share" it?

Brendan:
Perhaps you've missed the point about AI - where rather than being extensions of ourselves, bionics etc, more in the nature of tools, then the machines could be making what we might call moral choices.

I have not missed your point; you have missed mine.

I think they will have 'morals' (a slippery concept itself) because they will need them in order to understand us and our knowledge, civilization, etc. But a super intelligent AI will likely have morals that we cannot understand because we will not be able to model the future as accurately as it does. It could be dangerous to us; or it could save us all.

That's what I've been saying. Yes it could be. It could be terminal for human life. It's worth thinking about now.

Brendan:

This is why I would advocate enhancing our own minds just as we create AI. The two goals are remarkably compatible: technology and discoveries gained from an emulated human mind could easily show us how to enhance a real one - with out anyone dying. New chemicals, better drugs, perhaps even some re-wiring. Expanding our short term memory would enhance a great many things for example. Chips that connect to neurons, crowd sourced strategy optimization. Who knows.

Before going there, perhaps time to revisit the original topic - how the bounty of this revolution should be distributed. I definitely don't advocate doing any of this as "enhancement to maintain competitive advantage". That to me is an ethical bottom line - even if doping does help an individual win a bicycle race, it's something I'll never support.

Brendan:
Anyway, it's speculation at present, albeit extrapolated from current trends and achievements.

Recently, scientists have emulated a part of a rat's brain. It behaves identically to the real thing. But it runs on silicon.

Computer vision and recognition now allow driver-less cars. 15 years ago, this required a room full of computers. Google can search images based on the content of an image right there on your laptop. e.g. it can 'see' what it is.

Your smart phone understands the spoken word. Soon it will understand the meaning and context.

I do not wish to get bogged down in petty debates. I did not come here to hold a lecture. I've spent far too much time explaining subjects I thought were pretty self evident and now I am tired. Have fun everyone, and sorry if I was a bit brash.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1409101 19-Oct-2015 11:17

Economics is all about allocating limited resources. If a resource (e.g. manufacturing capability) is not in short supply, then it won't be subject to economic pressures. But other things will... so, if everyone has a 3D printer, then the power to run them (if there isn't already ubiquitous cheap power), and/or the comms to download designs (if there isn't already ubiquitous cheap Internet), and/or the mechanism for creating and distributing the raw materials, and/or the mechanism for removal of waste (recycling machinery onsite perhaps?), and/or the capability to design of objects become limiting resources.

Given that manufacturing of mining or agricultural equipment will also be essentially free, I guess that the price of things will reduce to essentially the cost of the raw materials, which in turn will be proportional to the land (or sea) area needed to produce them. Similarly, the price of generating electricity will be proportional to the area needed for the solar panels.

I think the increasing push for IP rights is part of this... the IP proportion of the value of an item is increasing, so it's now worth squabbling over control of it. Expect that to go on.

So, my advice, invest in land, and in RIAA/MPAA.

TheWinterDragon

44 posts

Geek

#1409333 19-Oct-2015 16:04

Okay I kind of followed that but what is RIAA/MPAA?

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1409539 20-Oct-2015 00:28

I never did learn to shut up....

Fred99:
Brendan:
it is more efficient to co-operate than it is to compete.

That doesn't seem to be how things work in the human world, from either a biological POV (how we evolved) or how our social and economic system operates. The concept that "competition drives innovation" seems to be very well accepted.

I'm afraid you have it a bit wrong there.

The most successful species are those that form groups, communities, colonies.

Our civilization is an example of direct and indirect co-operation and sharing. There is also a lot of competition, and while there can be examples of this competition providing a good result, usually it provides a bad one (war, disease, starvation, waste).
You seem to be under the impression that competition provided the technological and scientific progress we have seen over the last 10,000 years; this is patently false. By far the bigger contributor is various forms on co-operation, sharing, and collaboration.

The most important technologies you use today are products of co-operation.

Evolution is about competition? Oh, the ignorance.... Competition is simply ONE of the many tools in natures tool box for driving evolution, and not even the main one. Gene swapping (sex) is FAR more important to multi-cellular life; even bacteria swap genes. Environmental changes, isolation, extinctions, all pay major roles. Competition? Sure, it's there but it is inaccurate to claim evolution relies on it.

Brendan:
2. Why would a race of machines waste their time fighting with us, instead of simply transferring themselves to an environment we don't want that happens to have a trillion times our resources? The argument is equivalent of claiming you would fight a 3 year old over a muddy puddle in the drive way.

3. The quickest way for us to develop AI is to duplicate the workings of our own brains, and before that some animal brains. They will be no more capable than we will be. After that, we will want AI super intelligence. We could just emulate several minds in a large computer; or perhaps run them at a faster speed. But that will only give us answers we could have gotten ourselves, but faster. Useful though.

Better QUALITY of thought is the real key. Better pattern recognition, better memory, more parallelism. Hyper-dimensional information that can be used directly without conversion loss. Oh, I'm sure it'll happen but unless we design it to be a psychopath, it would simply take 2 above I think. Why bother fighting over a muddy puddle? If we are lucky, it'll take us along and improve us.

Ignorance breeds violence. Knowledge brings peace. I see no reason to think it's different for smarter entities.

But feel free to tell me why I'm wrong.

The conditions which make our planet a goldilocks zone for biological life may also make it a goldilocks zone for artificial life.

Highly debatable. We ourselves have already proven we can exist for a time outside our goldilocks earth - and WE do not have the complete mechanics manual to our bodies (yet).

We already have machines up there. With computers in them. I see no reason to think smarter computers would magically become impossible in space.

I don't share the optimistic view held by some that resources are unlimited.

It's a favorite fairy tale amoungst neo-liberals. Don't tell them Science already proved it wrong decades ago. They cry when you do that.

When two (or more) "devices" seek to use the same limited resource in order to serve their human masters, then how are they going to decide to "share" it?

Logically.

I would postulate they would either create more of the resource themselves, or find a substitute.

Do you have an example of a resource that is limited like this, while also not having any substitutes? Something worth dying for?

Brendan:
Perhaps you've missed the point about AI - where rather than being extensions of ourselves, bionics etc, more in the nature of tools, then the machines could be making what we might call moral choices.

I have not missed your point; you have missed mine.

I think they will have 'morals' (a slippery concept itself) because they will need them in order to understand us and our knowledge, civilization, etc. But a super intelligent AI will likely have morals that we cannot understand because we will not be able to model the future as accurately as it does. It could be dangerous to us; or it could save us all.

That's what I've been saying. Yes it could be. It could be terminal for human life. It's worth thinking about now.

As I said, I did not miss your point. But you miss mine.

Brendan:

This is why I would advocate enhancing our own minds just as we create AI. The two goals are remarkably compatible: technology and discoveries gained from an emulated human mind could easily show us how to enhance a real one - with out anyone dying. New chemicals, better drugs, perhaps even some re-wiring. Expanding our short term memory would enhance a great many things for example. Chips that connect to neurons, crowd sourced strategy optimization. Who knows.

Before going there, perhaps time to revisit the original topic - how the bounty of this revolution should be distributed. I definitely don't advocate doing any of this as "enhancement to maintain competitive advantage". That to me is an ethical bottom line - even if doping does help an individual win a bicycle race, it's something I'll never support.

That is illogical.

We, as a species, are defined by our ability to augment and enhance ourselves. You are doing it right now as you read this: your computer screen is an augmented form of sight, allowing you to know the thoughts of another person hundreds of miles away. In fact, the writing itself is an augmentation - this times for storing and forwarding knowledge and information through time and space.

You have fillings in your teeth I presume? An enhancement to the natural lifetime of those teeth. A technology that is embedded into your body that provides you with increased health and lifespan.

Your car; your electric shaver; your phone, computer, in fact every single item that is not growing from your DNA is an enhancement to your body, and therefore your 'competitive advantage'. They are external replaceable body parts.

All I suggest is the next step: internalizing some of them.

Yes: the original topic:

I do not know, but I suggest some form of licensing. For example, to operate a business you will require a license from the Government. As part of that license, 99% of it's ownership will be in the form of Shares (say), that are distributed evenly to the citizens on the country you are in. As founder of the business, you get some of those too, but also the last 1%. That is your incentive.

Remember: all your material needs are provided for, it's not like you are fighting for a roof over your head. You have all the shares in all the other companies to keep you going if you fail.

The shares cannot be sold. You receive dividends. You get to vote in the running of said company, or you may delegate it to a representative (some sort of expert, trusted friend who knows about that stuff, etc). This applies to all companies.

If the company fails, it's assets and debts are distributed to the others as appropriate.

This would likely provide a higher degree of income for the average person that our system today.

I realize this is incomplete; I never claimed I had a proper answer. And I do not think it would be the final shape of the economy after this transition period.

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1409541 20-Oct-2015 01:11

frankv: Economics is all about allocating limited resources. If a resource (e.g. manufacturing capability) is not in short supply, then it won't be subject to economic pressures. But other things will... so, if everyone has a 3D printer, then the power to run them (if there isn't already ubiquitous cheap power), and/or the comms to download designs (if there isn't already ubiquitous cheap Internet), and/or the mechanism for creating and distributing the raw materials, and/or the mechanism for removal of waste (recycling machinery onsite perhaps?), and/or the capability to design of objects become limiting resources.

Electricity: solar, wave, thermal, magnetic, and nuclear sources are abundant with current technology. Further advances will make them cheap.
Network Capacity: potentially unlimited. There are many technologies that have not even been explored yet as forms of communication (quantum mechanics for example).
Resource extraction and transport: We;ve only just been talking about driver-less trucks and cars. Why not robotic mining machines, foundries, etc? These areas are already highly automated. And while resources on Earth might be limited, we have a whole solar system to search with quadrillions of times the resources of Earth. Coupled with advanced, atomic level recycling and cheap energy - I think we'll be ok for a long time.
Design: One person can design an item, and those plans can be replicated infinitely over the net for no cost. Also as machines become more intelligent, they will design improved versions of everything too. Why wouldn't they?

Given that manufacturing of mining or agricultural equipment will also be essentially free, I guess that the price of things will reduce to essentially the cost of the raw materials, which in turn will be proportional to the land (or sea) area needed to produce them. Similarly, the price of generating electricity will be proportional to the area needed for the solar panels.

Exactly. Until someone starts doing it in orbit. Then land value will drop again.

I think the increasing push for IP rights is part of this... the IP proportion of the value of an item is increasing, so it's now worth squabbling over control of it. Expect that to go on.

Yes exactly right.

But it's a foolish task doomed to failure. The technology required to comprehensively protect IP properties is actually higher than the technology it is protecting. It is expensive and a failure already (as has been seen with software, music, and video). It simply does not work and never will because it is illogical.

[RANT]
So they rely instead on Laws. You are Prohibited from copying it under threat of some penalty. But that also is a fools quest: the expense of enforcing the law is likely to be more than the profits of selling the product. Net negative income. So they try to foist the expense of the protection of THEIR property onto the public. They do this by buying off and intimidating politicians. But that also will fail.

It will fail because people will routinely ignore it, as they do today. Governments will not be able to enforce it as their power diminishes due to people becoming increasingly independent from government infrastructure en mass. There will be less and less tax for them to pay the police.

Essentially, the IP industry will become irrelevant. the very first 'replicator' to be smuggled out of a lab ANYWHERE (and it will be smuggled, they won't let it go as they know the results as well as I) will spell the end to the entire stupid IP industry. And I will not shed a single tear.

Ridiculous idea, hiding knowledge and punishing people for doing what humans have done for 200,000 years. The very key to our survival since our pre human ancestors - sharing knowledge - artificially shackled in order to make some corporations insanely rich has to rate as one of the worst ideas in human history. A modern Dark Ages, thankfully soon to end if there is any justice in the world.

IP rights are a government enforced monopoly. There is nothing Capitalist about them, but the fact that Capitalism seems to rely on them is yet another indication of the many manifest failures of Capitalism; Capitalism cannot support itself and requires external support from... Socialist institutions.

And no, I will not get into any boring debates about whose ideology is the One True Faith.

[/RANT]

So, my advice, invest in land, and in RIAA/MPAA.

That's what the Chinese are doing, and our stupid government cant run fast enough to sell everything off they can (while stopping to pull pony tails along the way). Totally incompetent, with all the insight of a fresh turd - but hey, they are making the housing bubble grow faster than the home owners wages so the lemmings will vote for them until it goes pop leaving them all in debt for a million each, and then we have Greece... Idiots.

I wouldn't invest in the RIAA or MPAA or any of their clones. They are gangsters and are corrupt, and soon will be as irrelevant as the buggy whip cartel.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7