A very valid point of view, and one I agree is taking the back-burner based on the books and articles I've read around transhumanism and other technical innovations. I've commented elsewhere in this forum that the implications of vastly improved ("quantum leap?") technology also come with a fear-factor. Call me anal retentive, but I don't like the feeling of not being in control of technology (or politicians). The more I read about AI, the more excited I get. Lose control over that technology and, as you said elsewhere, we might end up with Aldous Huxley's imaginary drug soma from Brave New World. We also might get the machines from The Matrix or The Terminator, or V.I.K.I. from I, Robot. Then what? Where's Will Smith when you need him?

It does make one wonder: why don't people in the venture capital and STEM disciplines spend more time considering philosophy when dreaming of a world that might be? Anyone?

My but that's a depressing article. Could be an indictment of modern art or modern philosophy. Reading articles like Good job, Canada: Taylor Swift hits No. 1 on the Canadian iTunes charts with eight seconds of static, it's hard to know which.

Interesting idea. I doubt I'd pay $0.99/notification/month for the service, but the answer on their FAQ to "What happens I stop using the service before my balance reaches $10?" (sic) was good: "You simply never have to pay anything!"

Google has a similar service (for free) called Google Alerts which sends you an email anytime Google finds new results on a topic you’re subscribed to.

For anyone interested, I ran across a little about the science behind this overtone technique.

Yes, a problem on my end. Thank you. Downvote reversed :)

I don't see anything at the link.

This video is both funny and depressing at the same time because it's a dead-on accurate representation of current propaganda.

I've upvoted this article, but with mixed feelings. (Where's the "partially agree" upvote button?)

On the one hand, I very much agree that happiness often "comes from knowing what you truly value, and behaving in a way that’s consistent with those beliefs." Yet happiness doesn't always come from behaving consistent with your principles. (You even wrote about this here when discussing political activists who are sometimes imprisoned for behaving consistent with their beliefs.) I also don't agree that "What you do, who you’re with, and how you feel about the world around you, is completely up to you." (Again, you assert this in your same article when you discuss chance driving so much in our lives.) People often pretend to feel other than they really do. They often come up with rationalizations to effectuate this farce. Mike Rowe might consider that healthy - I would respectfully disagree.

2. In the course of your regular life you will develop passions for various pursuits...

Belief (2) from above posits that passions exist a priori of any serious engagement with a pursuit; they’re some mysterious Platonic form waiting for you to discover. This is a dangerous fiction.

My alternative definition claims instead that passion is the feeling generated by mastery. It doesn’t exist outside of serious hard work.

To claim this statement is false or fiction appears too broad as it seems contrary to what happens when we experience new ideas throughout life. I had passions - much stronger than interests - as a child before I developed the skills. As I master the skills, I didn't feel more passionate about the subjects. There are also childhood passions which I never pursued (yet still feel strongly about today). There are passions that I developed very late in life about topics of which I hadn't any exposure as a child. I'll agree that hard work can increase your feelings about a subject, but asserting passion requires mastery appears light on causality.

Put another way: three decades of research has shown that the traits that make us happy with our work have little to do with our personality or so-called “passions.”

Similar conclusions apply to related decisions, such as choosing your college major. Forget trying to divine some perfect match, and instead choose a major for your own reasons — not pressure from your parents or a misguided view on what’s “practical” — and then strive to become excellent at it. As I argued before, your love of the subject will grow with your sense of autonomy and competence.

Can't say I agree with this in toto; at least I can state this doesn't completely apply to me. My personality and what brings me happiness in my work are connected. Furthermore, there are certain subjects in which I have competence (and I could argue an expertise) that do not increase my joy. I still found it an interesting article.

Increasing intelligence and skills by changing DNA are exciting ideas. It's the potential for personality changes that I haven't fully wrapped my mind around yet. Sam Woolfe wrote an interesting article called Using Hebbian Theory to Change Your Personality around the plasticity of the brain. In it, he mentioned personality features that appear immune from modification. With modified DNA, it would seem alterations could be limitless. Unlike the training Woolfe mentions that leads to long-lasting personality changes, the future could hold drugs or wireless signals as the initiators (instigators?). I'm not sure how I feel about that potentiality. No effort required to change who we are? The implications are a little scary.

What a topic!

Historically, having multiple sex partners was common. It remains somewhat common today (if even only via sexual fantasies). I've personally had conversations with many who engage and enjoy these relationships. It's unquestionably natural.

The necessary conditions to morally engage in polysexuality all stem from the moral standard that we identified earlier: the good is that which improves a person’s life and happiness as well as those of his partner, while the evil is that which harms a person’s life or happiness or those of his partner.

I find it difficult to put a morality box around such human behavior. There are too many personal preferences of the individual participants. I don't think you can say a relationship will be more or less healthy and, therefore, more or less moral because I don't think you can strictly use an Epicurean approach for moral standards. The author's idea that having good reasons is a contributing factor to polysexuality's morality is too loosey-goosey for my taste. (What standard do you use for "good?") In fact, all of his conditions could be applied to any sexual relationship.

My take? Smoke 'em if you got 'em. :)

I find it difficult to define a standard - even for what I personally enjoy - as to when art is beautiful. My artistic taste buds aren't well-defined.

I enjoy Rand's writing and many of her ideas. I really do. I'm not too familiar with her positions and ideas in the Middle East and the context of her quotes above. But I agree with the author: her comments appear blindingly contradictory to some of the tenets of Objectivism. And those of us who know Rand's ideas know that contradictions do not exist. Even giving her the benefit of the doubt that she lacks knowledge, her comments do appear to be a "betrayal."

Just was coming to post this. Here's the actual study: Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks

Where's the "disgusting" upvote?

Tears flowing.

(shakes head) People unclear of the concept.

Fascinating

It's interesting you posted this in psychology as you could have just as correctly posted it in philosophy.

For Reiss and Marino, the dolphin study was not only convincing, it was a call to action. They and others argue that passing the mirror test indicates a level of self-awareness that makes it unethical to keep a species in captivity. "These animals have at least some level of self-awareness, and if they do, they know where they are, they can be aware of the limitations of their physical environment," Marino says.

Putting aside for a moment if the mirror test is really demonstrating self-awareness (instead of, for example, just differentiation), the question, obviously, is whether or not self-awareness is the sole requirement for ethical obligations. Sam Harris put the question differently in a TedTalk called Science can answer moral questions:

Why is it that we don't have ethical obligations toward rocks? Why don't we feel compassion for rocks? It's because we don't think rocks can suffer. And if we're more concerned about our fellow primates than we are about insects, as indeed we are, it's because we think they're exposed to a greater range of potential happiness and suffering.

In other words, Harris thinks the capacity for suffering is the basis for ethics. Reiss and Marino think self-awareness is the basis. Who's to decide, especially if morality is relative?

Then you have the utilitarian perspective, which leads to debates about animal research alternatives. If you say it's unethical to keep animals in captivity, you likely lose most of the medical treatments that are available to us because of animal testing. Many humans benefit from experiments on animals, so the utilitarians would probably argue the greatest happiness for the greatest number ethically justifies keeping animals captive and for tests.

And let's not forget about us carnivores who provide the market for breeding animals for the sole purpose of eating. The challenge with arguing the morality of eating meat is the fact that humans aren't the only carnivores. Are lions unethical when they kill and eat buffalo?

It's obvious that animals have the capacity to suffer. But I'm not sure being able to suffer or self-awareness are the only proper foundations for ethics to consider. For example, should we consider the ability to integrate the information of your senses with logic, abstracting it all into concepts? As far as I know, animals can't do this - only humans can. So, whereas humans can reason "it is wrong for me to kill that man because [x]," animals can't create a concept of "it is wrong to kill."

And let's also not forget that animals aren't the only ones we keep in captivity. We put people in jail when we consider someone a danger (and, more and more, because we consider them a danger to some political belief, but don't get me started). We put people in psychiatric institutions when we consider someone unable to reason. And we even outright torture and kill people... just because. That leads me to ponder whether humans are the best authority on what is and is not ethical. Who are we to judge?

As long as morality is relative, anything goes. It doesn't matter what the facts are, whether a capacity for self-awareness or an ability to suffer. All that matters is who has the gun. And that is unfortunate.

And it worked beautifully! Thank you!

I'd also like to offer a shout-out to Matthew James Taylor for the easy-to-use double column .css. Allowed me to focus on research and writing instead of formatting.

Sigmund Freud believed that most unconscious mental processes were not attributable to the laws of logic, especially the law of contradiction.

Well, when you're whacked out on cocaine, your mental functions do tend to be a bit off, especially your ability to use logic. From Cocaine: How ‘Miracle Drug' Nearly Destroyed Sigmund Freud, William Halsted

Freud loved the way cocaine made him feel. And he was very interested in its psychological components. For one, it did make him feel better when he was sad.

He also was amazed at how it made him talk about things endlessly that he thought were locked away in his brain. Sound familiar? That's talk therapy, but without the toxic side effects of cocaine. But he got to like it a little bit too much.

...He was using cocaine quite a bit in 1895 on himself, to the point he was having chest pain. He was depressed. And he also - his nose was so congested, he had to have a surgeon open it up with a knife so he could breathe, lots of signs that you might want to lay off the stuff.

Reminds me of something I read a few days ago: The solar powered plane set to fly around the world with no fuel - and it is so efficient it could remain in the air indefinitely. More importantly, it also remind me of a movie I haven't seen for ages (and which appears now to be in the public domain, which is great). It's called Who Killed the Electric Car. Amazing and very educational movie.

Reading this made me think of a post I read earlier today: Researchers Are Improving Machine Learning By Making Computers Teach Each Other Pac-Man.

Under the definition of brilliance, it should state "see Roddenberry." What he says here is just wonderful.

That Romeo and Juliet in 60 seconds video just makes me want to face palm.

As for love, I've never been a love at first sight kind of person (even though I have such an admiration for beauty). I would like a better understanding of this whole "chemistry" idea. So many women indicate how important chemistry is. The only logical way I can interpret it is as an amalgamation of different values (to use Rand's terminology), somewhat like a formula that leads to meeting a minimum requirement. So, if your chemistry formula is chemistry = A (looks) B (funny) C (intelligence) D (family-oriented), suitors can score differently on each of the variables but still achieve the minimally required chemistry. But, as this is related to love, objectivity such as this is likely thrown to the wind of feelings.

Sheesh. I think I just depressed myself. Meanwhile, Cupid just did a face palm.

Relevant: Will The Feds Crack Down On Medical Marijuana After Allowing Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana?

I consider myself an idealist, but I openly admit that a pragmatic response to some events is entirely in order. Take taxes, for example. I am morally against how the government uses my taxes for funding wars (among other things). But I am not willing to go to jail over it, as it wouldn't make any difference in the government's behavior. In other words, I know it wouldn't be practical. Does that make me a pragmatist or a idealist who takes precautions?

A very similar perspective: Art for no one’s sake.

My daughter doesn’t need to hear, “you’re so pretty.” She doesn’t need to hear “you’re so” anything. Tell her how well she did, how fast she’s learning, how much she helped. Tell her how great it is that she fell over and then got back up again. Tell your own daughter, and your nieces and cousins and grandchildren. Let them know just how much they can achieve. Don’t define girls by their looks; show them what they can do.

Putting aside for a moment that there's nothing wrong with acknowledging aesthetic values (looking pretty isn't easy or natural for everyone), I fully agree with this.

My initial reaction is I wouldn't change a thing. I'll give it some more thought, but I doubt I'll come to a different answer.

In light of what we now know about the NSA in contrast to the blatant lies told by the government, I think it reasonable to re-evaluate everything the government has ever said. No longer can anything the government says be taken at face value.

Of course, neither The Fountainhead nor Atlas Shrugged compare to the eroticism and violent sexual images found in books such as Pauline Reage's The Story of O or Marquis De Sade's 120 Days of Sodom

Marquis De Sade wrote about some incredibly sick stuff. Not for the faint of heart. "Violent sexual images?" More like a violent, upset stomach after reading. There's a movie about him called Quills. It doesn't come remotely close to describing how disturbed his writing was. Use caution when reading. Rand's rape scene (and it was rape) is like kids playing doctor compared to what De Sade presents.

I was in a bar weeks ago and overheard (he was overly boisterous - how could one not overhear?) a young lad calling his drink order into the bartender. "Hey babe? Gimme a..." She didn't appear offended, but I was. I find it completely offensive when men don't act like gentlemen.

Likewise, I also find it offensive when women don't act like ladies. Imagine what the world could be like if we all had a bit more manners.

Especially like the flowchart

I doubt I'd ever go through such rigor to ask a question, but it's an interesting framework to organize how to approach a problem.

Outstanding article, and very heart-felt. I went to tip but, because I haven't purchased any karma (yet), I got the message "How generous of you to want to tip this user. Unfortunately, to protect from fraud (and just plain being taken advantage of), tips are limited to the amount of karma you've purchased. Please don't blame us - blame the bad guys."

Though It's the thought that counts, right?

Relevant

I remember it - who you calling old?

Relevant: Reddit Censors Big Story About Government Manipulation and Disruption of the Internet

My little drama on reddit is nothing compared to moderators censoring stories like this.

Ah, yes. I received that question elsewhere. My sarcastic answer was "Because I dig Amsterdam. The beer is awesome, and those canals..." The factual answer, though, is that I first started my research looking at multiple localities within a larger region, expecting (and knowing full-well) there were going to be large differences in speed and cost. After many hours, I realized I was spending far too much time documenting a particular region and not enough time on a more global scale. So I switched to only documenting one data point in a geography, no matter how large that geography was. I also removed (or thought I had) all the other (redundant) data points. After doing a bunch of sorts and some minimal data validation, I moved onto writing the article.

In other words, Amsterdam (which, I might add, is the only place in the world where I've ever left a casino with more money than with which I entered), was an extra data point I forgot to remove as I had already found a cheaper, higher speed option in the Netherlands. Ooops, I made a mistake. That's all.

Apologies it got on your nerves. I meant what I said though: I really did enjoy the beer (even though I know it wasn't your beer). The Tripel sure was good. Got to hand it to those monks. And the canals really are lovely.

Edit: Also, I expected more windmills. Growing up in the states, the stories you learn about Holland always include lots of windmills and wooden shoes.

(nods) valME is a GREAT idea. I especially like the idea that I might someday get some income from it for my articles.

This isn't the first group I've ever been thrown out of. I don't expect it will be the last. Finding people who truly share your values is always difficult. It's one of the reasons I love to write. It's like putting a beacon out for someone to see. All I need is a few weary passengers from the ships who respond - and an island to party on - and I'm good.

From Povertjes:

For germany you didn´t read the small printed. You pay 39,95€ for 50mbit, if you want 200mbit you have to pay 15€ extra (and you need to provide the fiber).

From chumppi regarding Finland:

For example: http://tilaa.dna.fi/uberkaista 350Mbps for 59,90€/month.

Sonera: 0,199€ / Mbps

Dna: 0,171€ / Mbps ($0,23)

The faster you go the cheaper it gets.

Edit: This wouldn't change much but it would probably swap a lot of places if it were done on the whole list?

From IAMA-Fox-AMA:

The best ISP in Puerto Rico is Liberty, which offers 60Mbps down and 2Mbps up for $109.99.

The ISP used in this is Claro, and not many people like them.

from frostN0VA:

I wonder why did they include Ukrtelecom as the best internet in Ukraine... Ukrtelecom actually is one of the worst UA ISPs. For example you can get 1gbit/s from Triolan for just ~16.27$

100UAH for 100mbit/s additional 50UAH for 1gbit/s

Or Airbites.net.ua: 100mbit/s for ~8.30$ which is also better than, for example, Russian Beeline ISP with 24$ per month for the same speed.

Perspective from mihai2me:

Romanian here. The reason we have such fast internet speeds is that the whole country probably didn't even have internet before 1995, and we still used dial up modems till 2004 or so through the phone lines.

All that translates to the fact that there was no prior outdated internet lines to be replaced, so when the internet got big there was a big push from lots of companies to capitalize the market, and they did it all with the latest and greatest tech and fibre cables. Cuz of the new tech we have great speed, and cuz of the competition between tens of national ISPs and hundreds of local companies means we also have great prices.

I live in a rural area, and we have our own local ISP here that gets it's internet through RDS RCS and while we don't have the gigabit option available, i pay around $3 a month for 20Mbps internet that actually runs even faster than the contract advertises, getting real download speeds of almost 4Mb/s download and 2Mb/s upload, which is more that i could ever use, being able to download a full blu ray movie in 20 mins. Remember, all that for $3 a month.

Also RDS RCS provides citywide wireless for all it's customers in 2400 locations, available through the username and pass that you get in the contract, service i can also use even though i'm not even their direct customer.

According to Niall_:

Hey, I'd have a look at Virgin Media for the UK, they have a 120mb plan for £37.50, or $62.25, making it $0.518 per MB, placing it at 34 in the list from 48th place previously.

Personally I prefer the BT plan as it has no data management and all the VM plans have speed restrictions during the day, but on a cost per MB chart VM comes in ahead.

According to toaster60:

Hi dug, just a comment about South Africa. We have what's called "Line Rental" that is charged separately from the ISP. This is paid to the infrastructure owner (Telkom) for the use of their hardware. Typically, this is around R159 a month on top of the R499 per month to the ISP.

That effectively makes South Africa USD $6.01/Mbps.

Thank you for posting this.

You're welcome. You know, if there was a thanks karma in this community, it would save you the trouble of writing thanks. Oh, and I would have earned a penny. (nudge)

(You really might want to consider making thanks available to all communities. Perhaps instead of wit? It probably would be used much more.)