
Arminius wrote:Both cases bring the machines, but the first case with punishment, which is the more "traditional" case, wins time by procrastination, while the second case with cuddling, which is the more "modern" case, wins some people by "reprogramming", as you call it. As a "chief accountant" I would say that the first case is more efficient. So I prefer that first case. Call me "old-fashion".
James S Saint wrote:So are you "certain" efficiency is the best aim? 100% certain?
Arminius wrote:James S Saint wrote:So are you "certain" efficiency is the best aim? 100% certain?
Relating to those two cases there is no "best aim", James, because the difference between those two cases are too small, and both cases are bad, too bad.
James S Saint wrote:Arminius wrote:James S Saint wrote:So are you "certain" efficiency is the best aim? 100% certain?
Relating to those two cases there is no "best aim", James, because the difference between those two cases are too small, and both cases are bad, too bad.
That is why I said, "Which do you prefer standing closest to?" I am not asking which you prefer to be, but rather which you would rather have nearer to you as they do their thing (which is real, btw).
Arminius wrote:Yes, I know. And because of that small differences I said: "As a 'chief accountant' I would say ...". One has to be very micrological in order to find those very micrological differences.
James S Saint wrote:Arminius wrote:Yes, I know. And because of that small differences I said: "As a 'chief accountant' I would say ...". One has to be very micrological in order to find those very micrological differences.
So your answer stands?
A) That you prefer that I condemn you for what you currently are and not take the risk that you might learn something and become even worse?
B) The alternative is that I assess you for what you might learn and take the risk that you might become even better.
So far, you have chosen (A).
James S Saint wrote:???
I thought that I chose B... ?
Arminius wrote:James S Saint wrote:???
I thought that I chose B... ?
No. You chose "the second thing" (=> 2), the second case, and not "B".
James S Saint wrote:Punishment brings machines replacing all of mankind.
Conversion brings machines aiding to the eternal existence of mankind.
I prefer that second thing. Call me "old-fashion".
James S Saint wrote:A) That you prefer that I condemn you for what you currently are and not take the risk that you might learn something and become even worse?
B) The alternative is that I assess you for what you might learn and take the risk that you might become even better.
So far, you have chosen (A).
Arminius wrote:How many machines are in the "humanised (mechanised) world"?
James S Saint wrote:Arminius wrote:How many machines are in the "humanised (mechanised) world"?
"approximately 1,966,514,816 computers" (2 billion).
"As of 2012, there are 1.1 billion automobiles on the earth, which is a 57% increase from the 700 million automobiles that were on earth's roads just 8 years earlier in 2004."
The number of "machines" is probably uncountable but just the two largest categories gets us to approx. 3 billion.
Arminius wrote:James S Saint wrote:Arminius wrote:How many machines are in the "humanised (mechanised) world"?
"approximately 1,966,514,816 computers" (2 billion).
"As of 2012, there are 1.1 billion automobiles on the earth, which is a 57% increase from the 700 million automobiles that were on earth's roads just 8 years earlier in 2004."
The number of "machines" is probably uncountable but just the two largest categories gets us to approx. 3 billion.
From whom (human/s) or what (machine/s) have you got that numbers?
James S Saint wrote:Just web searches, such as Number of cars in the world. No telling where they got their numbers.
Arminius wrote:James S Saint wrote:Just web searches, such as Number of cars in the world. No telling where they got their numbers.
And Ask.com, right?
Arminius wrote:It is a pity that there is still no real census of machines, no real counting of machines.
The reproduction rate of humans is currently at 1.25. And the reproduction rate of the machines?
Arminius wrote:If the sense of history will be lost, then it will make no sense to have history at all, because there will be no one who knows anything about both the sense of history and the history itself. There will be no historian, no one who knows what history and ist sense is, probably even no one with a sense for the meaning of the past for both the present and the future.
Arminius wrote:According to Hans Peter Raddatz those "four levels" are:1) world "nobility" (upper "nobility"),
2) state "nobility" (middle "nobility"),
3) dressage "nobility" (lower "nobility"),
4) Masses.
Interestingly the governmental Politicians are not a part of the state "nobility" (middle "nobility"), but merely a part of the "nobility" (lower "nobility").The state "nobility" (=> 2) and the dressage "nobility" (=> 3) shall unite to one "nobility"; both shall become one dressage "nobility" because states shall vanish.
Moreno wrote:Arminius wrote:It is a pity that there is still no real census of machines, no real counting of machines.
The reproduction rate of humans is currently at 1.25. And the reproduction rate of the machines?
Machines that make other machines or themselves
or machines made by humans?
James S Saint wrote:If humanity continues doing what it is doing, they will simply write a new history now and then in order to give that "sense of history" significance. Socialist regimes require a cause to be fighting for and against (manufactured terrorism). And that cause cannot be viewed as never changing, else there is no perceived hope. So a new history that presents the idea of "hope on the horizon" has to be written and instilled into the minds of people from time to time = revolving history.
Users browsing this forum: Artimas, Majestic-12 [Bot]