They receive enough allowance from the government to stay alive -- and that's it.
Sounds like a good basic income experiment right there.
No, it doesn't. The missing part is that they can't get a job to increase their income. Basic income is created to keep you afloat and there needs to be enough education included in the package to get you a job if you want the slightest bit of luxuries.
They will never be able to afford any useful education in the current and coming system. That's not a basic income problem, but a you need to have at least that much money to get enough education to perform a job.
What you are failing to take into account here is within the next 10 - 20 years, basic income WILL be a humans only source of income. As automation and AI continue to develop and decimate the concept of human employment, there will be no "job" for a human to go off and do. This will also tend to highlight the point of obtaining higher education, as in there will be no point.
You can attempt to dismiss this as wild speculation, and assume we're 1,000 years away from that actually happening, but the reality is it's going to happen much faster than you ever think, because Greed directly benefits from these advancements.
If there's one thing we know by now, Greed is fucking relentless.
By requiring that workers move to hub cities such as San Francisco, Austin, or New York, IBM could both rid itself of older workers and make the jobs more appealing to younger, lower-salaried professionals...
Coincidentally, an internal IBM video distributed to staff, and seen by The Register, advocates working in an office. Funnily enough, it features a lot of young folks...
And how in the hell are you going to convince those "lower-salaried professionals" to work for slave wages when mandating they move to some of the most expensive places to live in the entire country?
It's frustrating to see any use of computers being called AI.
It's not intelligence to follow a decision tree. It's intelligence to come up with the decision tree.
What does it really matter when the impact and outcome is the same? Low-paid legal staff used to have a viable job. Soon, they will be no longer necessary.
Do autonomous vehicles have to be AI-perfect in order to disrupt and displace human drivers? Hell no. The solution merely has to kill less humans than human drivers do. Shouldn't be too hard a task to do, since we meatsacks suck at driving, and kill hundreds every day.
It's long been argued that we humans only use a mere fraction of our brains capacity. If that's the case, then perhaps "software automation" does nothing more than highlight the fact that a mere fraction of AI is all that is needed to disrupt and displace human employment.
The good news is we'll have plenty of free time to argue bullshit semantics to the Nth degree regarding the technology that turned us into the unemployable masses.
TFA makes a big deal about vulnerabilities in 'commercial' UAVs but then goes on about obtaining root in an obvious 'toy' quadcopter. Not the $60,000 big boys that might be fun (or lucrative) to steal or, more threateningly, drop on somebody's head. A half kilogram plastic thing that might poke your eye out if you tried hard enough.
Hell, I (and a whole bunch of others) would love for somebody to root the DJI quads. Then we can get rid of some of the more recent 'improvements' in the firmware.
Really, I'm not seeing this. Somebody pops the innards of a cheap, Chinese toy.
Woot!
Drop a drone into 8 lanes of freeway traffic, and tell me again how a "toy" should always be dismissed as harmless as chaos ensues from distracting drivers.
And if you have suggestions for vendors to correct 'improvements' their hardware, then let them know instead of sitting around waiting for a hack.
If you oversimplify things and then discuss them in very abstract terms, then you can end up at weird conclusions. What the FBI did was get a warrant which they used to hack into the world's largest child-porn site. The site continued to run for 2 weeks while the FBI hacked the computers of thousands of visitors to that site, which was essential to figure out who those people were. This saved a bunch of children and enabled arrests of hundreds of pedophiles.
Based on those events, how did they actually break the law?
Guess that depends on how many children they continued to put in harms way by running a child-porn site. What is the acceptable timeframe for minors to be used as bait? Had they continued to get leads, would another 2 months been acceptable? 2 years? Whomever did get harmed during the entrapment phase, is it merely swept under the rug for the "greater good"? I'm also guessing the victims parents might have a different viewpoint than the average citizen clapping.
One might also question the initial intent and limits of a single warrant legally justifying hacking across 8,000 computers in over 100 countries. If one warrant can do that, then the FBI probably only needs to request one warrant for the next decade to cover any damn thing they want.
No, that doesn't make sense. When the FBI uses hacking to save hundreds of abused children, it doesn't follow that they will somehow then silence free speech, or go on fishing expeditions, or whatever the hell else.
It is nothing but an assumption to think they would not engage in such activity (parallel construction isn't a myth), and my entire point was centered around the fact that the FBI broke the law to catch the infamous bad guy, and the masses accepted this behavior because it happened to ping their moral compass in just the right way.
When the FBI breaks the law to go after the crime-of-the-month, it paves the way for that behavior to be justified and accepted, which they will use the same tactic of breaking the law to go after crime-of-the-month again, which in the future may not be so easily accepted or align with your moral and legal compass as easily as saving children.
Taking a different point of view makes the issue even clearer. If I, an ordinary citizen, chose to use hacking to bust a pedo-pimping ring, and then chose to enact my own flavor of vigilante justice involving hacking a hundred more computers across state and even country lines, I would be standing in front of a federal judge facing a dozen charges, and would probably be labeled as some kind of "terrorist". When the FBI does the same thing, it's all cool because think-of-the-children defense was morally triggered.
If the law is that much of a burden, then get rid of it altogether rather than reward those who circumvent it while creating double standards.
under normal circumstances i would be upset. but children were involved and theyre making it sound like they have rescued active sex slave children. therefor i cant say what they did was wrong.
On the surface, I agree with you.
That said, the problem with your mentality is this little thing called precedent, which creates one hell of a slippery slope.
Today, this activity by law enforcement is "justified" by your moral compass, and a complete lack of analysis to determine if what they actually did was illegal translates into accepted behavior.
Tomorrow, this same activity by law enforcement may be used to silence what they deem as "propaganda". Or illegally search through ISP records to build cases, perhaps by parallel construction. Or enslave and hide the truth based on political contributions. All because it was once accepted by the masses when think-of-the-children was peddled out in front of the illegal activity.
"There's even a built-in camera at the top of the device, which could be useful for video conferencing."
So, the always-listening device sitting inside people's homes is now outfitted with an always-watching feature. Color me surprised that the Alexa generation would welcome this shit too.
Since most of us do video conferencing from a smartphone or tablet which is far more portable, I'm failing to understand why we need another device to do this. I suppose next years model will come with a SIM card too; you know, so everyone can replace that cheap landline they used to have with the e-hipster kitsch flavor of the month.
This kind of invasive bullshit will be welcomed by the young, ignorant generation who fucking love [latest hipster tech], and will ignore anything Common F. Sense might have to say about privacy.
Those who ignorantly dismiss an Orwellian prediction are doomed to create it.
If I'm paying for the phone and the monthly bill, and the phone is registered to my name, I can install whaterver snooping software I want on it.
Not that I would, because for one if my kids want a cellphone they can work and earn enough to pay for it themselves, and two I believe that treating them like real human beings and respecting their privacy is the right thing to do.
You might want to review the wiretapping laws before trying to defend yourself by waiving a cell phone bill in the judges face. The laws can be rather horrifying regardless of parental right.
That said, I'm rather glad you respect your children's privacy. We both know as parents trust is earned, and is often not easily restored.
Most young people never phone people and rarely answer any calls, unless it's their mom or their SO
Translation: Most young people have turned into electronic introverts, and avoid speaking to other humans unless absolutely necessary. Rather ironic, since social media has turned narcissism into a profession.
Can't wait to see how technology will psychologically fuck up the next generation. I'm sure by then VR friends will be waaaay better than having to deal with some meatsack.
Why is it that social media addicts post everything you never wanted to know about their lives online for all to see, and yet if you were to demand to see their internet history, they would run around and scream like a rabid monkey, totally offended over such an invasion of privacy.
Either give enough of a shit about your privacy to try and stop the destruction of it, or don't give a shit about any of it. Fucking pick one already.
No surprise to see this from the nanny state, but the ignorance in these politicians that think this would actually work is ridiculous! Secure encryption just isn't that hard to do. Regulations like this are only going to impact ordinary citizens and the most inept of criminals. Underestimating organizations like ISIS, as if they could not employ unbreakable encryption trivially, is a huge mistake. It actually puts the public at *greater* risk. Oh well, at least we'll be able to watch what the (former?) UKIP idiots are up to.
This has fuck-all to do with catching criminals.
This has everything to do with mass surveillance.
You can stop laughing now. Nothing comical about this, especially when you consider that UK citizens won't even resist this, which will pave the way for every other country to do the same.
"...a survey of 1,461 young adults between the ages of 18 and 30...found that mobile phones are one of the most useful tools for the interviewing and hiring process"
Translation: 1,461 young adults admit they can't live without their mobile phone, and prefer it as the tool for communicating, regardless if it's for an interview or a Tinder hook-up.
I wonder how these young adults would feel if they got fired via text message. Oh, suddenly that would be rude and impersonal? Yeah, not unlike wanting to be hired via text message.
"More candidates are happy to do video interviews in lieu of traveling to meet hiring managers in person."
I can understand if a company is having a difficult time filling a position being open to a bit more flexibility when hiring, but this kind of pandering and coddling to the social-media texting generation is rather pathetic. You want the job bad enough? Then make an effort to get off your ass and go meet the human hiring you in fucking person.
...Society will not be accepting of having two robot lawyers argue in court. There will be ethical, moral, and other questions raised about doing so.
First off, thank you for your feedback. I think we are in agreement about a lot of what the future will bring. That said, I had to laugh a bit regarding this particular example of yours, since there are many who can easily argue that having two human lawyers can bring forth ethical and moral issues. Ironically AI or near-AI can likely be programmed to be far more honest and ethical than humans can be, especially when standing in legal hot water.
This gets to the core of something I feel so many missed. MANY service jobs are on target for being "automatable" in the next two decades. Just BECAUSE you can automate, does not mean society will accept it. I prefer a kiosk in McDonalds, it is less likely to screw up my order.
Your own acceptance to some technology tends to point out the fallacy in this thinking, since one generation before you likely has a disdain for that "newfangled kiosk bullshit", and would prefer a human for every job. What society accepts is changing all the time. 20 years ago most would never allow a computer to sit inside their home, always listening. Today, the masses welcome the Alexa spies inside the most private spaces of our lives, and share every damn thing online via social media narcissism. Privacy hasn't just been destroyed. It's been dismissed as unnecessary.
In a sit-down restaurant though? I might like to order a quick refill from the tablet on the table, but I sure as hell do not want "WaitressBot 2000" rolling in and placing the food on my table, I like a waiter/waitress with a personality to interact with. These fields, while possible to replace with technology, face an uphill battle for acceptance.
Sure about the uphill battle? Again, you don't mind a tablet on the table for quick orders, but would prefer a human for some portion of your dining experience. The next generation will likely prefer to order everything via voice-automated app, and doesn't mind "WaitressBot 2000" because it's hipster kitsch. The 13-year old kid doesn't want to go to the "old-fashioned" human-powered restaurant. They instead beg their parents to go to the bot-powered mega-food-plex, because it's "cool", blind to the fact they'll never find a service job when they reach the age of needing a job.
My advice to people going to college and entering the worforce has been to find jobs that require interpersonal skills and creativity, or go into trades. If your job is routine patern recognition, data entry, etc... you will face trouble in the coming decades.
I agree that human creativity will likely be one of the last targets to succumb to robotic overlords. That said, the proverbial artist have been starving for centuries now, so not sure how much payback you're going to get from teaching people how to paint, fish, or meditate, no matter how bad an overly stressed and overworked human workforce will need that release.
Yet another neckbeard so certain of the future without understanding of the vast professional job market or where AI is really limited.
The world is flattening more and more every day, and politicians standing on podiums spitting out hollow promises of job creation will hardly keep pace with the demand of a growing population that is now wired to succeed as a professional, and seek the best for themselves.
My point was more centered around the fact that automation and AI will accelerate the issues that are already coming. 30 years ago, there was a "vast" market for many types of accounting jobs. Then came MS Excel automation, which grew into full-fledged ERP solutions, and crushed the need for massive accounting departments for every tedious bean-counting job. The same can be said for many professional markets.
Today's deep-learning and algorithm based AIs are nowhere close to the AGI required to replace jobs with soft skills (which few on Slashdot actually have). There's nothing we have, even with the primative neural networks, to suggest we are close to having AGI soon if ever.
20 years ago you were still using a modem to dial-up to the internet, and no one envisioned back then what we now have today, two decades later. Humans suck at predicting the technical future, so do not continue to assume what AI will not be capable of in 10 - 20 years. Chances are you'll be wrong.
Also consider the "good enough" standard. Is autonomous driving as good as a human behind the wheel? No. Is it good enough to replace one? Yes, in many ways it is, which is why we will accept good enough standards and move forward to replace those jobs humans previously did. This is also the reason future AI solutions will succeed and move forward. We may never replace the human mind with AI. The point is AI may never need to be that good to become a disruption to human employment.
The one thing I can accurately predict about the future? Greed will continue to infect humanity, and shape the future as it has our past. The growing chasm between the 99% and those in control highlight this quite clearly. Greed is what demands automation and AI develop as quickly as possible, regardless of the impact.
Yeah, learning from the past is useless. Believing tales about the future is what wise people do. In the future, only AIs will learn from what already happened.
First, of all, I never said learning from the past is useless. We humans never seem to learn from history, so perhaps your statement is more pointless than previously thought, even smacking of sarcasm.
Applying how automation shifted solutions in the past will not be as applicable in the future was my point. If the cost of education continues to skyrocket, "go get an education" will certainly not be the proverbial answer for the masses to "fix" the problem of unemployment. Population growth will continue to outpace the number of necessary jobs as automation continues to advance and the need for humans to perform tasks continues to decline. I know it sounds good when politicians stand on podiums and give the ignorant masses the bullshit line of "creating jobs", but it's usually never quite that simple to just shit out hundreds of thousands of jobs and call it a day. Humans are also living longer creating a rather massive retired population to sustain. Health issues related to age and no real cure for limiters such as Alzheimer's and Dementia also tend to prevent that aging population from holding a job.
In short, we're outgrowing the job supply in many different areas. Automation and AI driven by greed will only seek to accelerate the issue.
Once upon a time it took 100% of humans 100% of their time to stay a live and gather enough food. Then we started to specialize.
In 1987 2% of Americans farmed, and that's was the lowest number (total) since the 1800s. In 1820, when they were reported at less than 2.1 million, or about 72 percent of the American work force of 2.9 million. By 1850, farm people made up 4.9 million, or about 64 percent, of the nation's 7.7 million workers. The farm population in 1920, when the official Census data began, was nearly 32 million, or 30.2 percent of the population of 105.7 million, the report said. So we've gone from 100 to 72 to 64 to 30 to 2% of the population need to just make food to keep our species going.
How many people did horses 'automate'? If you look at the cumulative improvements at a single task how many people with sticks can a single tractor replace? Think of how many 'jobs' we could bring back if we outlawed tractors? It doesn't mean that a 'farmer' has gone away, it just means they do something different. An engineer in 2017 has had most of what an engineer did in 1917 'automated'.
Computers have been automating computer jobs since they were invented. Compilers are just "robots" that turn high level C into Assembly. I don't even write my own C any more, Simulink does a much better and consistent job at it. The autogenerated code may be a bit verbose but it's very explicit and bester right
Please stop looking at the past as any indication as to how the future will go; it's fundamentally a flawed analysis.
Yes, history has shown that automation has come along and replaced jobs. Our previous answer was to tell humans to go get an education, and go "do something different." That solution will not be applicable in the future when AI starts replacing even the educated human, and there is nothing for humans to go off and "do". Education is barely a viable answer today due to the obscene cost of it. AI will merely work and be refined to eliminate the justification of education altogether.
Automation and AI will be vastly different in the future, and will create a vastly different impact, which is why we cannot merely look at history as a guide.
The end user is carrying it around in a backpack or bag for a couple of hours a day
How do you know what the end user does? Personally I frigging hate backpacks and for most of the day I carry my device around in a notepad satchel (note the old type of notepad, since this device is the same size).
Spoiled users constantly bitching about the size and weight of laptops drove the marketeers to sit in a room yelling "LIGHTER!" and "THINNER!" over and over again, until the Engineering/Design department did actually achieve shoving 20 pounds of shit in a 5-pound bag. The end result is a thin-as-paper proprietary design that can hardly be repaired if damaged, and often must be replaced instead. And all for saving a pound or two. Consumers need to stop bitching, because 99% of them are in fact not counting every gram of weight on their bodies as if they're hiking a mountain. THAT was my point.
Clearly Bendgate didn't highlight the issue clear enough that razor-thin anything isn't always better.
Bendgate highlighted that with thin devices you shouldn't dedicated a large portion of the cross section to a weak button. Bendgate also highlight a massively blown out of proportion media coverage. As much as I like to heap shit on Apple, very few devices actually broke in the grand scheme of the number that were sold. But really you're just too fussy. There are plenty of devices that suit you, but you don't want them. You want a Macbook custom made for you.
Wanting or needing to run OSX is not being "picky", it's called a requirement. Now go look at the new Pro line and tell me how I have choice anymore. I have two choices. Pay them money for a sealed box, or pay them a shitload more money for a sealed box with all upgrades purchased up-front at their markup. There is no DIY upgrade path anymore. There is no replacing a hard drive yourself if you want more space or it fails. There is no buying memory upgrades later when chip density increases and costs decrease.
You have choice?
It may surprise you that Apple and Microsoft aren't the only two hardware companies out there. How this surprises I don't know.
It may surprise you that no other company supports OSX if that's what I want or need to run, thus driving me to a single vendor solution, which will cost me considerably more money than it used to, in order to outfit the hardware up front if I want it to actually last.
The real problem is choice is being removed faster than external connections
Yes by adding new devices with new form factors to the market while all previous form factors are still available choice is clearly being removed. Got it.
*worlds slowest and most retarded clap*
In the case of Apple, no. Previous form factors are not still available. Their last laptop that still supported a decent DIY upgrade path was released in 2012, and has now been removed from their product line. It's now a sealed box. Same with most of their all-in-one desktop line. You can't even upgrade the memory on a Mac Mini anymore. And they're touting all of this as the "future" of design. Save your claps for someone else.
Apple set the bar with their latest "Pro" designs. Everyone else is merely following
It sounds like you're new to the internet so let me help you: http://www.google.com/ Click this link and do a search for what you would like. You'll find a lot of laptops nothing like the Macbook Pro out there.
Other form factors exist. OSX doesn't play nice with them, and pure greed coming from Apple has created a pain in the financial ass for the consumer.
It's just a phase. Something we have to get though by guidance, not obstruction. We don't want or need society telling us what we can put up on the internet. That's just another form of dictatorship. You don't have to read or watch.
Let's not overlook or dismiss the very reason we're having this discussion. This "phase" has cost the lives of innocent victims, including children, which me not reading or watching hasn't changed that fact.
And laws already DO tell you what you can and cannot put up on the internet; laws defined by a civilized society that exist for valid reasons. The First Amendment does not magically waive our right to abide by those laws. Start spewing terrorist rhetoric or threaten the life of a standing president online, and you'll quickly see how your Right is not a free-for-all.
And when narcissistic behavior is redefined as "normal" in a society addicted to the spotlight, there is no "guidance" being provided. That's like looking for a cure for addiction by working with addicts; no one sees a problem.
No, the parent is recommending shitcanning yet another tool that does nothing but feed ruthless narcissism for the sake of attention whoring and click revenue.
Maybe you should focus on your own life, rather than trying to micro-manage the lives of other people. If they want to spend time on FB, that is their choice, not yours.
Maybe we should focus on the reason we're having this discussion, since the issue is not merely limited to narcissism, but also the innocent victims of it. Social media live streaming has streamed homicides of children, which brings for the question; would narcissists have murdered if the live spotlight wasn't available? Further analysis needs to be done, but the impact certainly begs the question.
Regardless of the criminal impact, narcissism is not a good human trait. And social media has addicted millions to the spotlight. Give it another decade, and humans won't even know how to function without it. Due to the addiction, extended internet outages will likely cause suicides or perhaps people lashing out in other harmful ways, affecting others. It's sad at best, and destructive at worst. Parallels to drug addiction? Yeah, you could say that.
I'm sorry, what? You want to ban or restrict these tools so as not to offend people?
No, the parent is recommending shitcanning yet another tool that does nothing but feed ruthless narcissism for the sake of attention whoring and click revenue.
Speaking of offensive,, let's look at social media addicts. Nothing but a bunch of fucking narcissists addicted to whoring out every single aspect of their lives online in hopes of getting pointless attention. Talk about a net detriment to society. It's pathetic. Fuck social media live streaming.
No one attaches a 13.5" display to their desktop and boasts about it.
I have a 10" additional display attached. What of it? There are use cases for small additional screens.
That additional display came at an additional cost. Likely higher than just building a laptop with a reasonable display size. The end user is carrying it around in a backpack or bag for a couple of hours a day with plenty of breaks in between, not hiking up the Himalayas. A 16" display would have likely added ounces to the overall design.
Translation: Fuck You consumer
Or maybe you can't fit a removable SSD in a laptop that thin. This isn't fuck you, it's giving the customer what they want. If you want a desktop replacement go buy a desktop replacement.
Clearly Bendgate didn't highlight the issue clear enough that razor-thin anything isn't always better. The end result is an overly fragile design built with nothing but proprietary bullshit that you can't upgrade. Ever. Say I want a Macbook. Any new models built differently? No. All new models are built the same way. No other option but to pay the vendor directly for upgrades at time of purchase. Yeah, I'd say that pretty much spells out Fuck You Consumer.
Translation: You can expect to get up to 4 hours of Netflix binging.
Why would you advertise a Netflix binging figure on a device designed for students to work in class? Also the SP4 gets about 5 1/2 hours in Netflix binging and it wasn't advertised as 14.5h battery life.
My statement was meant to be both a pun against the claimed 14+ hour battery life (which almost always falls short with any real work), as well as highlight a common use of laptops today. Regardless of what it's designed for, we know what it will be used for.
Translation: We spent a billion dollars on behind-the-keyboard R&D for the earbud generation.
THIS is what hardware has become these days; a fucking fashion shitshow for hypes sake. Thanks Apple, for starting this trend.
Yes. Thankyou Apple. Because of you I no longer lug heavy lumps of electronics around with me everywhere I go. Because of you I now have the choice of getting something paper thin or thick as a brick. Thanks for adding yet another choice to the market. It's a shame you can't fix idiots who think that just because this product doesn't suit them everyone else should fall in line.
You have choice? That's a laugh Speaking of falling in line, you will soon see how the no-upgrade-option-sealed-box-razor-thin model of proprietary design that Apple started will take over the entire market. This is but one example of it. Soon, all other vendors will follow. You want razor-thin and proprietary? Fine. I do not. The real problem is choice is being removed faster than external connections. I remember the days of lugging around 10-pound "bricks". Nothing is that heavy or bulky anymore. The point here is there used to be a happy medium between function and fashion. A reasonable design. Acceptable thickness. Upgrade options available. Now fashion and greed have taken over, for the sake of driving profits via proprietary design, forcing the consumer to accept it, or accept it, which is bullshit. Apple set the bar with their latest "Pro" designs. Everyone else is merely following that model due to the profit margins Apple has demonstrated.
Slashdot Mirror
They receive enough allowance from the government to stay alive -- and that's it.
Sounds like a good basic income experiment right there.
No, it doesn't. The missing part is that they can't get a job to increase their income. Basic income is created to keep you afloat and there needs to be enough education included in the package to get you a job if you want the slightest bit of luxuries.
They will never be able to afford any useful education in the current and coming system. That's not a basic income problem, but a you need to have at least that much money to get enough education to perform a job.
What you are failing to take into account here is within the next 10 - 20 years, basic income WILL be a humans only source of income. As automation and AI continue to develop and decimate the concept of human employment, there will be no "job" for a human to go off and do. This will also tend to highlight the point of obtaining higher education, as in there will be no point.
You can attempt to dismiss this as wild speculation, and assume we're 1,000 years away from that actually happening, but the reality is it's going to happen much faster than you ever think, because Greed directly benefits from these advancements.
If there's one thing we know by now, Greed is fucking relentless.
This article in The Register (yea, I know) suggests the real reason behind IBM's decisions:
By requiring that workers move to hub cities such as San Francisco, Austin, or New York, IBM could both rid itself of older workers and make the jobs more appealing to younger, lower-salaried professionals...
Coincidentally, an internal IBM video distributed to staff, and seen by The Register, advocates working in an office. Funnily enough, it features a lot of young folks...
And how in the hell are you going to convince those "lower-salaried professionals" to work for slave wages when mandating they move to some of the most expensive places to live in the entire country?
Talk about fucking shortsighted and ignorant.
It's frustrating to see any use of computers being called AI.
It's not intelligence to follow a decision tree. It's intelligence to come up with the decision tree.
What does it really matter when the impact and outcome is the same? Low-paid legal staff used to have a viable job. Soon, they will be no longer necessary.
Do autonomous vehicles have to be AI-perfect in order to disrupt and displace human drivers? Hell no. The solution merely has to kill less humans than human drivers do. Shouldn't be too hard a task to do, since we meatsacks suck at driving, and kill hundreds every day.
It's long been argued that we humans only use a mere fraction of our brains capacity. If that's the case, then perhaps "software automation" does nothing more than highlight the fact that a mere fraction of AI is all that is needed to disrupt and displace human employment.
The good news is we'll have plenty of free time to argue bullshit semantics to the Nth degree regarding the technology that turned us into the unemployable masses.
TFA makes a big deal about vulnerabilities in 'commercial' UAVs but then goes on about obtaining root in an obvious 'toy' quadcopter. Not the $60,000 big boys that might be fun (or lucrative) to steal or, more threateningly, drop on somebody's head. A half kilogram plastic thing that might poke your eye out if you tried hard enough.
Hell, I (and a whole bunch of others) would love for somebody to root the DJI quads. Then we can get rid of some of the more recent 'improvements' in the firmware.
Really, I'm not seeing this. Somebody pops the innards of a cheap, Chinese toy.
Woot!
Drop a drone into 8 lanes of freeway traffic, and tell me again how a "toy" should always be dismissed as harmless as chaos ensues from distracting drivers.
And if you have suggestions for vendors to correct 'improvements' their hardware, then let them know instead of sitting around waiting for a hack.
If you oversimplify things and then discuss them in very abstract terms, then you can end up at weird conclusions. What the FBI did was get a warrant which they used to hack into the world's largest child-porn site. The site continued to run for 2 weeks while the FBI hacked the computers of thousands of visitors to that site, which was essential to figure out who those people were. This saved a bunch of children and enabled arrests of hundreds of pedophiles.
Based on those events, how did they actually break the law?
Guess that depends on how many children they continued to put in harms way by running a child-porn site. What is the acceptable timeframe for minors to be used as bait? Had they continued to get leads, would another 2 months been acceptable? 2 years? Whomever did get harmed during the entrapment phase, is it merely swept under the rug for the "greater good"? I'm also guessing the victims parents might have a different viewpoint than the average citizen clapping.
One might also question the initial intent and limits of a single warrant legally justifying hacking across 8,000 computers in over 100 countries. If one warrant can do that, then the FBI probably only needs to request one warrant for the next decade to cover any damn thing they want.
No, that doesn't make sense. When the FBI uses hacking to save hundreds of abused children, it doesn't follow that they will somehow then silence free speech, or go on fishing expeditions, or whatever the hell else.
It is nothing but an assumption to think they would not engage in such activity (parallel construction isn't a myth), and my entire point was centered around the fact that the FBI broke the law to catch the infamous bad guy, and the masses accepted this behavior because it happened to ping their moral compass in just the right way.
When the FBI breaks the law to go after the crime-of-the-month, it paves the way for that behavior to be justified and accepted, which they will use the same tactic of breaking the law to go after crime-of-the-month again, which in the future may not be so easily accepted or align with your moral and legal compass as easily as saving children.
Taking a different point of view makes the issue even clearer. If I, an ordinary citizen, chose to use hacking to bust a pedo-pimping ring, and then chose to enact my own flavor of vigilante justice involving hacking a hundred more computers across state and even country lines, I would be standing in front of a federal judge facing a dozen charges, and would probably be labeled as some kind of "terrorist". When the FBI does the same thing, it's all cool because think-of-the-children defense was morally triggered.
If the law is that much of a burden, then get rid of it altogether rather than reward those who circumvent it while creating double standards.
under normal circumstances i would be upset. but children were involved and theyre making it sound like they have rescued active sex slave children. therefor i cant say what they did was wrong.
On the surface, I agree with you.
That said, the problem with your mentality is this little thing called precedent, which creates one hell of a slippery slope.
Today, this activity by law enforcement is "justified" by your moral compass, and a complete lack of analysis to determine if what they actually did was illegal translates into accepted behavior.
Tomorrow, this same activity by law enforcement may be used to silence what they deem as "propaganda". Or illegally search through ISP records to build cases, perhaps by parallel construction. Or enslave and hide the truth based on political contributions. All because it was once accepted by the masses when think-of-the-children was peddled out in front of the illegal activity.
"There's even a built-in camera at the top of the device, which could be useful for video conferencing."
So, the always-listening device sitting inside people's homes is now outfitted with an always-watching feature. Color me surprised that the Alexa generation would welcome this shit too.
Since most of us do video conferencing from a smartphone or tablet which is far more portable, I'm failing to understand why we need another device to do this. I suppose next years model will come with a SIM card too; you know, so everyone can replace that cheap landline they used to have with the e-hipster kitsch flavor of the month.
This kind of invasive bullshit will be welcomed by the young, ignorant generation who fucking love [latest hipster tech], and will ignore anything Common F. Sense might have to say about privacy.
Those who ignorantly dismiss an Orwellian prediction are doomed to create it.
My kid's phone is mine. It's in my name, I pay for it, and no prosecutor's going to go after me for PARENTING.
If any of you were looking for the legal equivalent of "hold my beer and watch this.", you've found it.
Hell, who needs wiretapping laws, right? I'm sure the judge will take your 'cause-imma-parent defense.
If I'm paying for the phone and the monthly bill, and the phone is registered to my name, I can install whaterver snooping software I want on it.
Not that I would, because for one if my kids want a cellphone they can work and earn enough to pay for it themselves, and two I believe that treating them like real human beings and respecting their privacy is the right thing to do.
You might want to review the wiretapping laws before trying to defend yourself by waiving a cell phone bill in the judges face. The laws can be rather horrifying regardless of parental right.
That said, I'm rather glad you respect your children's privacy. We both know as parents trust is earned, and is often not easily restored.
If I'm paying for my kids phone I'll do whatever the hell I please with it.
Phones are bought.
Trust is earned.
Good luck with that shit. Legally and otherwise.
Most young people never phone people and rarely answer any calls, unless it's their mom or their SO
Translation: Most young people have turned into electronic introverts, and avoid speaking to other humans unless absolutely necessary. Rather ironic, since social media has turned narcissism into a profession.
Can't wait to see how technology will psychologically fuck up the next generation. I'm sure by then VR friends will be waaaay better than having to deal with some meatsack.
Why is it that social media addicts post everything you never wanted to know about their lives online for all to see, and yet if you were to demand to see their internet history, they would run around and scream like a rabid monkey, totally offended over such an invasion of privacy.
Either give enough of a shit about your privacy to try and stop the destruction of it, or don't give a shit about any of it. Fucking pick one already.
No surprise to see this from the nanny state, but the ignorance in these politicians that think this would actually work is ridiculous! Secure encryption just isn't that hard to do. Regulations like this are only going to impact ordinary citizens and the most inept of criminals. Underestimating organizations like ISIS, as if they could not employ unbreakable encryption trivially, is a huge mistake. It actually puts the public at *greater* risk. Oh well, at least we'll be able to watch what the (former?) UKIP idiots are up to.
This has fuck-all to do with catching criminals.
This has everything to do with mass surveillance.
You can stop laughing now. Nothing comical about this, especially when you consider that UK citizens won't even resist this, which will pave the way for every other country to do the same.
"...a survey of 1,461 young adults between the ages of 18 and 30...found that mobile phones are one of the most useful tools for the interviewing and hiring process"
Translation: 1,461 young adults admit they can't live without their mobile phone, and prefer it as the tool for communicating, regardless if it's for an interview or a Tinder hook-up.
I wonder how these young adults would feel if they got fired via text message. Oh, suddenly that would be rude and impersonal? Yeah, not unlike wanting to be hired via text message.
"More candidates are happy to do video interviews in lieu of traveling to meet hiring managers in person."
I can understand if a company is having a difficult time filling a position being open to a bit more flexibility when hiring, but this kind of pandering and coddling to the social-media texting generation is rather pathetic. You want the job bad enough? Then make an effort to get off your ass and go meet the human hiring you in fucking person.
...Society will not be accepting of having two robot lawyers argue in court. There will be ethical, moral, and other questions raised about doing so.
First off, thank you for your feedback. I think we are in agreement about a lot of what the future will bring. That said, I had to laugh a bit regarding this particular example of yours, since there are many who can easily argue that having two human lawyers can bring forth ethical and moral issues. Ironically AI or near-AI can likely be programmed to be far more honest and ethical than humans can be, especially when standing in legal hot water.
This gets to the core of something I feel so many missed. MANY service jobs are on target for being "automatable" in the next two decades. Just BECAUSE you can automate, does not mean society will accept it. I prefer a kiosk in McDonalds, it is less likely to screw up my order.
Your own acceptance to some technology tends to point out the fallacy in this thinking, since one generation before you likely has a disdain for that "newfangled kiosk bullshit", and would prefer a human for every job. What society accepts is changing all the time. 20 years ago most would never allow a computer to sit inside their home, always listening. Today, the masses welcome the Alexa spies inside the most private spaces of our lives, and share every damn thing online via social media narcissism. Privacy hasn't just been destroyed. It's been dismissed as unnecessary.
In a sit-down restaurant though? I might like to order a quick refill from the tablet on the table, but I sure as hell do not want "WaitressBot 2000" rolling in and placing the food on my table, I like a waiter/waitress with a personality to interact with. These fields, while possible to replace with technology, face an uphill battle for acceptance.
Sure about the uphill battle? Again, you don't mind a tablet on the table for quick orders, but would prefer a human for some portion of your dining experience. The next generation will likely prefer to order everything via voice-automated app, and doesn't mind "WaitressBot 2000" because it's hipster kitsch. The 13-year old kid doesn't want to go to the "old-fashioned" human-powered restaurant. They instead beg their parents to go to the bot-powered mega-food-plex, because it's "cool", blind to the fact they'll never find a service job when they reach the age of needing a job.
My advice to people going to college and entering the worforce has been to find jobs that require interpersonal skills and creativity, or go into trades. If your job is routine patern recognition, data entry, etc... you will face trouble in the coming decades.
I agree that human creativity will likely be one of the last targets to succumb to robotic overlords. That said, the proverbial artist have been starving for centuries now, so not sure how much payback you're going to get from teaching people how to paint, fish, or meditate, no matter how bad an overly stressed and overworked human workforce will need that release.
Yet another neckbeard so certain of the future without understanding of the vast professional job market or where AI is really limited.
The world is flattening more and more every day, and politicians standing on podiums spitting out hollow promises of job creation will hardly keep pace with the demand of a growing population that is now wired to succeed as a professional, and seek the best for themselves.
My point was more centered around the fact that automation and AI will accelerate the issues that are already coming. 30 years ago, there was a "vast" market for many types of accounting jobs. Then came MS Excel automation, which grew into full-fledged ERP solutions, and crushed the need for massive accounting departments for every tedious bean-counting job. The same can be said for many professional markets.
Today's deep-learning and algorithm based AIs are nowhere close to the AGI required to replace jobs with soft skills (which few on Slashdot actually have). There's nothing we have, even with the primative neural networks, to suggest we are close to having AGI soon if ever.
20 years ago you were still using a modem to dial-up to the internet, and no one envisioned back then what we now have today, two decades later. Humans suck at predicting the technical future, so do not continue to assume what AI will not be capable of in 10 - 20 years. Chances are you'll be wrong.
Also consider the "good enough" standard. Is autonomous driving as good as a human behind the wheel? No. Is it good enough to replace one? Yes, in many ways it is, which is why we will accept good enough standards and move forward to replace those jobs humans previously did. This is also the reason future AI solutions will succeed and move forward. We may never replace the human mind with AI. The point is AI may never need to be that good to become a disruption to human employment.
The one thing I can accurately predict about the future? Greed will continue to infect humanity, and shape the future as it has our past. The growing chasm between the 99% and those in control highlight this quite clearly. Greed is what demands automation and AI develop as quickly as possible, regardless of the impact.
Yeah, learning from the past is useless. Believing tales about the future is what wise people do. In the future, only AIs will learn from what already happened.
First, of all, I never said learning from the past is useless. We humans never seem to learn from history, so perhaps your statement is more pointless than previously thought, even smacking of sarcasm.
Applying how automation shifted solutions in the past will not be as applicable in the future was my point. If the cost of education continues to skyrocket, "go get an education" will certainly not be the proverbial answer for the masses to "fix" the problem of unemployment. Population growth will continue to outpace the number of necessary jobs as automation continues to advance and the need for humans to perform tasks continues to decline. I know it sounds good when politicians stand on podiums and give the ignorant masses the bullshit line of "creating jobs", but it's usually never quite that simple to just shit out hundreds of thousands of jobs and call it a day. Humans are also living longer creating a rather massive retired population to sustain. Health issues related to age and no real cure for limiters such as Alzheimer's and Dementia also tend to prevent that aging population from holding a job.
In short, we're outgrowing the job supply in many different areas. Automation and AI driven by greed will only seek to accelerate the issue.
Once upon a time it took 100% of humans 100% of their time to stay a live and gather enough food. Then we started to specialize. In 1987 2% of Americans farmed, and that's was the lowest number (total) since the 1800s. In 1820, when they were reported at less than 2.1 million, or about 72 percent of the American work force of 2.9 million. By 1850, farm people made up 4.9 million, or about 64 percent, of the nation's 7.7 million workers. The farm population in 1920, when the official Census data began, was nearly 32 million, or 30.2 percent of the population of 105.7 million, the report said. So we've gone from 100 to 72 to 64 to 30 to 2% of the population need to just make food to keep our species going.
How many people did horses 'automate'? If you look at the cumulative improvements at a single task how many people with sticks can a single tractor replace? Think of how many 'jobs' we could bring back if we outlawed tractors? It doesn't mean that a 'farmer' has gone away, it just means they do something different. An engineer in 2017 has had most of what an engineer did in 1917 'automated'.
Computers have been automating computer jobs since they were invented. Compilers are just "robots" that turn high level C into Assembly. I don't even write my own C any more, Simulink does a much better and consistent job at it. The autogenerated code may be a bit verbose but it's very explicit and bester right
Please stop looking at the past as any indication as to how the future will go; it's fundamentally a flawed analysis.
Yes, history has shown that automation has come along and replaced jobs. Our previous answer was to tell humans to go get an education, and go "do something different." That solution will not be applicable in the future when AI starts replacing even the educated human, and there is nothing for humans to go off and "do". Education is barely a viable answer today due to the obscene cost of it. AI will merely work and be refined to eliminate the justification of education altogether.
Automation and AI will be vastly different in the future, and will create a vastly different impact, which is why we cannot merely look at history as a guide.
The end user is carrying it around in a backpack or bag for a couple of hours a day
How do you know what the end user does? Personally I frigging hate backpacks and for most of the day I carry my device around in a notepad satchel (note the old type of notepad, since this device is the same size).
Spoiled users constantly bitching about the size and weight of laptops drove the marketeers to sit in a room yelling "LIGHTER!" and "THINNER!" over and over again, until the Engineering/Design department did actually achieve shoving 20 pounds of shit in a 5-pound bag. The end result is a thin-as-paper proprietary design that can hardly be repaired if damaged, and often must be replaced instead. And all for saving a pound or two. Consumers need to stop bitching, because 99% of them are in fact not counting every gram of weight on their bodies as if they're hiking a mountain. THAT was my point.
Clearly Bendgate didn't highlight the issue clear enough that razor-thin anything isn't always better.
Bendgate highlighted that with thin devices you shouldn't dedicated a large portion of the cross section to a weak button. Bendgate also highlight a massively blown out of proportion media coverage. As much as I like to heap shit on Apple, very few devices actually broke in the grand scheme of the number that were sold. But really you're just too fussy. There are plenty of devices that suit you, but you don't want them. You want a Macbook custom made for you.
Wanting or needing to run OSX is not being "picky", it's called a requirement. Now go look at the new Pro line and tell me how I have choice anymore. I have two choices. Pay them money for a sealed box, or pay them a shitload more money for a sealed box with all upgrades purchased up-front at their markup. There is no DIY upgrade path anymore. There is no replacing a hard drive yourself if you want more space or it fails. There is no buying memory upgrades later when chip density increases and costs decrease.
You have choice?
It may surprise you that Apple and Microsoft aren't the only two hardware companies out there. How this surprises I don't know.
It may surprise you that no other company supports OSX if that's what I want or need to run, thus driving me to a single vendor solution, which will cost me considerably more money than it used to, in order to outfit the hardware up front if I want it to actually last.
The real problem is choice is being removed faster than external connections
Yes by adding new devices with new form factors to the market while all previous form factors are still available choice is clearly being removed. Got it.
*worlds slowest and most retarded clap*
In the case of Apple, no. Previous form factors are not still available. Their last laptop that still supported a decent DIY upgrade path was released in 2012, and has now been removed from their product line. It's now a sealed box. Same with most of their all-in-one desktop line. You can't even upgrade the memory on a Mac Mini anymore. And they're touting all of this as the "future" of design. Save your claps for someone else.
Apple set the bar with their latest "Pro" designs. Everyone else is merely following
It sounds like you're new to the internet so let me help you: http://www.google.com/ Click this link and do a search for what you would like. You'll find a lot of laptops nothing like the Macbook Pro out there.
Other form factors exist. OSX doesn't play nice with them, and pure greed coming from Apple has created a pain in the financial ass for the consumer.
Yes, my issue is with Apple, and their
It's just a phase. Something we have to get though by guidance, not obstruction. We don't want or need society telling us what we can put up on the internet. That's just another form of dictatorship. You don't have to read or watch.
Let's not overlook or dismiss the very reason we're having this discussion. This "phase" has cost the lives of innocent victims, including children, which me not reading or watching hasn't changed that fact.
And laws already DO tell you what you can and cannot put up on the internet; laws defined by a civilized society that exist for valid reasons. The First Amendment does not magically waive our right to abide by those laws. Start spewing terrorist rhetoric or threaten the life of a standing president online, and you'll quickly see how your Right is not a free-for-all.
And when narcissistic behavior is redefined as "normal" in a society addicted to the spotlight, there is no "guidance" being provided. That's like looking for a cure for addiction by working with addicts; no one sees a problem.
No, the parent is recommending shitcanning yet another tool that does nothing but feed ruthless narcissism for the sake of attention whoring and click revenue.
Maybe you should focus on your own life, rather than trying to micro-manage the lives of other people. If they want to spend time on FB, that is their choice, not yours.
Maybe we should focus on the reason we're having this discussion, since the issue is not merely limited to narcissism, but also the innocent victims of it. Social media live streaming has streamed homicides of children, which brings for the question; would narcissists have murdered if the live spotlight wasn't available? Further analysis needs to be done, but the impact certainly begs the question.
Regardless of the criminal impact, narcissism is not a good human trait. And social media has addicted millions to the spotlight. Give it another decade, and humans won't even know how to function without it. Due to the addiction, extended internet outages will likely cause suicides or perhaps people lashing out in other harmful ways, affecting others. It's sad at best, and destructive at worst. Parallels to drug addiction? Yeah, you could say that.
I'm sorry, what? You want to ban or restrict these tools so as not to offend people?
No, the parent is recommending shitcanning yet another tool that does nothing but feed ruthless narcissism for the sake of attention whoring and click revenue.
Speaking of offensive,, let's look at social media addicts. Nothing but a bunch of fucking narcissists addicted to whoring out every single aspect of their lives online in hopes of getting pointless attention. Talk about a net detriment to society. It's pathetic. Fuck social media live streaming.
No one attaches a 13.5" display to their desktop and boasts about it.
I have a 10" additional display attached. What of it? There are use cases for small additional screens.
That additional display came at an additional cost. Likely higher than just building a laptop with a reasonable display size. The end user is carrying it around in a backpack or bag for a couple of hours a day with plenty of breaks in between, not hiking up the Himalayas. A 16" display would have likely added ounces to the overall design.
Translation: Fuck You consumer
Or maybe you can't fit a removable SSD in a laptop that thin. This isn't fuck you, it's giving the customer what they want. If you want a desktop replacement go buy a desktop replacement.
Clearly Bendgate didn't highlight the issue clear enough that razor-thin anything isn't always better. The end result is an overly fragile design built with nothing but proprietary bullshit that you can't upgrade. Ever. Say I want a Macbook. Any new models built differently? No. All new models are built the same way. No other option but to pay the vendor directly for upgrades at time of purchase. Yeah, I'd say that pretty much spells out Fuck You Consumer.
Translation: You can expect to get up to 4 hours of Netflix binging.
Why would you advertise a Netflix binging figure on a device designed for students to work in class? Also the SP4 gets about 5 1/2 hours in Netflix binging and it wasn't advertised as 14.5h battery life.
My statement was meant to be both a pun against the claimed 14+ hour battery life (which almost always falls short with any real work), as well as highlight a common use of laptops today. Regardless of what it's designed for, we know what it will be used for.
Translation: We spent a billion dollars on behind-the-keyboard R&D for the earbud generation.
THIS is what hardware has become these days; a fucking fashion shitshow for hypes sake. Thanks Apple, for starting this trend.
Yes. Thankyou Apple. Because of you I no longer lug heavy lumps of electronics around with me everywhere I go. Because of you I now have the choice of getting something paper thin or thick as a brick. Thanks for adding yet another choice to the market. It's a shame you can't fix idiots who think that just because this product doesn't suit them everyone else should fall in line.
You have choice? That's a laugh Speaking of falling in line, you will soon see how the no-upgrade-option-sealed-box-razor-thin model of proprietary design that Apple started will take over the entire market. This is but one example of it. Soon, all other vendors will follow. You want razor-thin and proprietary? Fine. I do not. The real problem is choice is being removed faster than external connections. I remember the days of lugging around 10-pound "bricks". Nothing is that heavy or bulky anymore. The point here is there used to be a happy medium between function and fashion. A reasonable design. Acceptable thickness. Upgrade options available. Now fashion and greed have taken over, for the sake of driving profits via proprietary design, forcing the consumer to accept it, or accept it, which is bullshit. Apple set the bar with their latest "Pro" designs. Everyone else is merely following that model due to the profit margins Apple has demonstrated.