In short, tell me how all it all gets "better" when you and the other 40% of the human race find yourselves unemployable.
I gather you're an optimist, or you're thinking relatively short term, say 10-20 years out...
I'm not an optimist about this particular topic at all. The 40% estimate was short term, likely no more than 20 years out. It will eventually become closer to 90%, but society cannot accept that fact, so they dismiss it and call people crazy and overly pessimistic about the future.
The true problem to solve for is the Problem of Greed.
The answer to this is taxes and redistribution of wealth to provide a basic income for everyone.
Ah, because taxation of course has always made sure that the billionaires of the world are completely honest and ethical about paying their fair share today, because tax havens are a myth and don't exist, right?
Greed will guarantee that those you wish to burden with taxation to sustain the unemployable masses will lobby, cheat, and lie to ensure "basic income" is nothing more than Welfare 2.0, and not a penny more. For many, that isn't an acceptable answer to this.
humans are incapable of driving cars without getting intoxicated first
No, you stupid piece of shit, THAT IS JUST YOU. Stop pouding twelve-packs of Keystone Light every day you stupid alcoholic piece of shit!NEWS FLASH: Automobiles are MADE FOR HUMANS TO OPERATE and we've been doing so VERY SAFELY for a HUNDRED YEARS NOW. Accident figures are overblown by the media because PANIC SELLS ADVERTISING DOLLARS. We do not need 'self driving cars', they are a MEME, stop falling for it!
Instead of simply addressing the alcoholics, perhaps you should be addressing the MUCH larger portion of the population who is addicted to their smartphones and cannot stop texting behind the wheel.
Autonomous driving is being driven far harder by that audience due to a constant need to address social media demand and not be bothered with that "driving" bullshit.
The problem being outlined here is specifically addressing the automation that will be obliterating human employment in the coming years. Without a drastic shift in how we enable a human to sustain themselves and survive (meaning employment), there will be considerable pain that no robots-do-it-better/faster/safer analysis will be able to overshadow.
In short, tell me how all it all gets "better" when you and the other 40% of the human race find yourselves unemployable.
The true problem to solve for is the Problem of Greed.
Since the recurring gripe regarding the cost of textbooks seems to center around the fact that a "new" version is required every fucking semester, which artificially inflates the textbook costs, I propose a rather simple solution. Institutions are not allowed to enforce a new textbook requirement unless the actual curriculum changes by a significant amount.
In other words, still teaching the exact same shit you were teaching 10 years ago in that English course? Then the exact same 10-year old textbook should work just fine. Used books are a hell of a lot cheaper, and cycling them through many students would maximize recycling efforts instead of killing trees for greeds sake.
You're asking why the elderly at-risk generation who is statistically suffering from diabetes, heart disease, and obesity is not eating a bowl of salt?
Don't get me wrong, I like a good bowl of pho, but there are few dishes that you can ingest three days worth of sodium in less than 15 minutes. Go figure the generation who's probably been chastised by their doctor about shitty eating habits shuns it.
This is like asking why vegans aren't eating McDonalds.
We've watched companies like Dragon Systems struggle to perfect speech recognition software.
Decades later, we watched Siri struggle to understand the proverbial brogue associated with converting various languages to English, falling victim to parody videos.
Now, I'm supposed to believe we've magically eclipsed all that to type with my brain? This is like NASA claiming we've gone straight to plaid with regards to fast space travel.
There's a valid reason we're all still banging away on keyboards in the year 2017.
Replacing cheaper hardware every year or two tends to add up, which confirms your initial statement; you get what you pay for.
I'm not going to cry over a pair of $10 to $20 headphones when they self-destruct from day-to-day use. I'll toss them out, pull another one out from the storage closet, and order some more if I need to. Why spend more money on something you're going have to replace anyway?
My point was more centered around the fact that headphones are not a product you have to replace often if you get a quality pair, unless you tend to beat the shit out of them during day-to-day usage. Mine sit on my desk and I use them quite often, which is why sound quality and comfort are key factors for me. To each their own. Cheers.
This will likely be a considerable disruptive move within the industry that has made traditional heat-based machines for decades now. A monopoly driven into the industry secured by patents may not prove to be a benefit for all those employed in the industry. For consumers, neither will a $5000 price tag.
Good grief, listen to yourself. How can a $5000 product be a "disruptive force" competing with products costing $200 and doing the same thing?
How can an $5000 television set become a "disruptive force" within the industry competing with products costing $200 and doing the same thing?
Let's not sit here and pretend that HDTVs didn't cost thousands of dollars when they first hit the market. The simple fact is most never-before-seen-too-cool-to-be-true technology is initially sold at considerably higher prices.
To use the infamous car analogy, there's a reason people are collectively losing their shit over the thought of a a $35,000 Tesla automobile; because it ultimately saves money by not having excess run costs related to traditional power sources. A dryer performing five times better than a traditional heat-based design does present an ROI argument when you consider a dryer is an appliance you keep for a very long time.
It was stated it consumes less energy, does not produce unnecessary heat.. I get you are fine with your current machine, but why shouldn't we improve what we have?
We should look to improve on what we have.
The problem is often how we go about introducing it. This will likely be a considerable disruptive move within the industry that has made traditional heat-based machines for decades now. A monopoly driven into the industry secured by patents may not prove to be a benefit for all those employed in the industry. For consumers, neither will a $5000 price tag.
They took a hit when Trump announced "Cancel Order!" to their Air Force one bid. Our entire economy is built around short term stock bumps because most CEO pay is in bonuses and stock options (so that they don't have to pay income tax on it).
Boy, it sure is a good thing that their projects don't last long, and they never have to think about the impact of short-sighted stupid decisions in the long run. I mean, how long do you really need an engineer to design an airplane? Surely no longer than a fiscal quarters worth of stock bumps, right?
>the people don't care about secure products>headlines and drama everywhere
Only one of these can be true.
Since when? People don't care about secure products (e.g. free apps and voice automation), and they eat up bullshit drama and hype (e.g. "reality" TV).
Hell, even mainstream media has jumped all over the fake news bandwagon, because it's all the rage these days. Clicks mean more than facts now.
The state gets significant revenue by licensing and fuel and other. Don't think everyone will give it up so easy. Driving is as much of a perceived right as gun ownership.
Once autonomous driving safety records outshine humans behind the wheel by a considerable margin, there will be a price to pay to maintain the luxury of human driving, in much the same way you pay a premium today for the luxury of driving around a 1960's sports car that doesn't have any airbags, ABS, anti-theft, or other modern features that qualify as deductibles.
People won't give it up because they want to. They may give it up because they have to, due to liability and greed.
...If Uber pulls off what they're trying to do they'll become the defacto transportation system for basically the entire modern world. Now, any sane society would just have public transportation instead of "Public Transportation with a private company skimming 20% off the top...
Part of what makes Uber unique is the fact that they employ humans, which is a considerable benefit for any sane society to see value in.
If Uber "pulls off" autonomous vehicles (essentially the only road to a sustainable business model), they fucking will be public transportation with a greedy company skimming 20% off the top.
The larger concern is they may force all other competition off the proverbial road in the process, ensuring that your "defacto" option is the only monopoly in town. You thought cab fares were bad? Wait until that shit happens and insurance companies make it financially impossible to afford to own a car or let a "dangerous" human drive one.
Just as it should be. BK isn't "legitimizing triggering digital assistants", they are exposing serious flaws in poorly thought out technology.
You're missing the point. Because BK will likely not suffer any legal action against them for this stunt, they are in fact legitimizing the activity of triggering digital assistants. A lack of legal action or punishment can easily set a precedent.
And they aren't exposing jack shit because no one cares.
BK is not to be blamed but thanked; the people who would allow themselves to be exposed to such triggering and the companies that makes the shoddy products are the problem.
Thanked? That's a laugh. Who gives a shit enough to thank them?
As I said before, the people don't care about secure products, and haven't given a shit about security in a very long time. They still choose shitty passwords no matter how much we tell them about the consequences. They share their entire digital lives online for the world to see. They will gladly demand that an app be free in exchange for sharing everything they do with it.
This product does not have a problem. It's working exactly the way the people want it to, and with no bothersome password.
...The only way to clean up the mess is to point out the flaws to the point that people don't WANT an always-on voice command system. And the only way that happens is if people find it more annoying than helpful.
People have always found passwords to be annoying. So much so that the "top 10 worst passwords" lists haven't really changed in decades. Yes, the same fucking stupid behavior of picking a shitty password has been passed on through generations of computer users. Identity theft on the rise because of it? Sure. People still don't give a shit.
In short, there is no fixing this. People WANT insecurity. They WANT to be lazy. It's the entire fucking reason they paid good money for an always-on voice command system that has no need for an annoying password to sit in the privacy of their home.
consider the difference between addiction and habituation. being addicted to morphine is different to being too lazy to find any other avenues of entertainment or socializing than snapchat or twitter.
Uh, too lazy?
I challenge you to approach the average teenager and force them to shut down all of their social media accounts and confiscate their smartphone in order to "go outside and play". See how their behavior is categorized as mere laziness or boredom.
Habitual behavior is often a clear sign of addiction.
Oh, please. Caffeine addiction is more serious than smartphone 'addiction.'
And yet one statistic proves this statement is utter bullshit; Distracted Driving.
I seriously doubt caffeine can eclipse the number of fatalities and injuries caused every day due to addicts banging away on their smartphones while behind the wheel.
This is more a case of children failing to be taught self-control, or escapism as a crutch. Both should be dealt with (or the cause of it, in the latter's case), but treating it like an addiction probably isn't going to help.
A parent addicted to a drug finds their child is bothering them too much, wanting their attention. Often, what's the answer? Give the child the drug. The addict knows what the immediate benefit is to them; they won't be bothered anymore. The addict also fails to see a problem with their solution.
Now, replace "drug" with "smartphone." This is addiction, and needs to be treated as such, and probably for more than just the children.
Slashdot Mirror
In short, tell me how all it all gets "better" when you and the other 40% of the human race find yourselves unemployable.
I gather you're an optimist, or you're thinking relatively short term, say 10-20 years out...
I'm not an optimist about this particular topic at all. The 40% estimate was short term, likely no more than 20 years out. It will eventually become closer to 90%, but society cannot accept that fact, so they dismiss it and call people crazy and overly pessimistic about the future.
The true problem to solve for is the Problem of Greed.
The answer to this is taxes and redistribution of wealth to provide a basic income for everyone.
Ah, because taxation of course has always made sure that the billionaires of the world are completely honest and ethical about paying their fair share today, because tax havens are a myth and don't exist, right?
Greed will guarantee that those you wish to burden with taxation to sustain the unemployable masses will lobby, cheat, and lie to ensure "basic income" is nothing more than Welfare 2.0, and not a penny more. For many, that isn't an acceptable answer to this.
As I said before, Solve for Greed.
humans are incapable of driving cars without getting intoxicated first
No, you stupid piece of shit, THAT IS JUST YOU. Stop pouding twelve-packs of Keystone Light every day you stupid alcoholic piece of shit! NEWS FLASH: Automobiles are MADE FOR HUMANS TO OPERATE and we've been doing so VERY SAFELY for a HUNDRED YEARS NOW. Accident figures are overblown by the media because PANIC SELLS ADVERTISING DOLLARS. We do not need 'self driving cars', they are a MEME, stop falling for it!
Instead of simply addressing the alcoholics, perhaps you should be addressing the MUCH larger portion of the population who is addicted to their smartphones and cannot stop texting behind the wheel.
Autonomous driving is being driven far harder by that audience due to a constant need to address social media demand and not be bothered with that "driving" bullshit.
...It can only get better.
The problem being outlined here is specifically addressing the automation that will be obliterating human employment in the coming years. Without a drastic shift in how we enable a human to sustain themselves and survive (meaning employment), there will be considerable pain that no robots-do-it-better/faster/safer analysis will be able to overshadow.
In short, tell me how all it all gets "better" when you and the other 40% of the human race find yourselves unemployable.
The true problem to solve for is the Problem of Greed.
Since the recurring gripe regarding the cost of textbooks seems to center around the fact that a "new" version is required every fucking semester, which artificially inflates the textbook costs, I propose a rather simple solution. Institutions are not allowed to enforce a new textbook requirement unless the actual curriculum changes by a significant amount.
In other words, still teaching the exact same shit you were teaching 10 years ago in that English course? Then the exact same 10-year old textbook should work just fine. Used books are a hell of a lot cheaper, and cycling them through many students would maximize recycling efforts instead of killing trees for greeds sake.
On that note, why aren't baby boomers eating pho?
You're asking why the elderly at-risk generation who is statistically suffering from diabetes, heart disease, and obesity is not eating a bowl of salt?
Don't get me wrong, I like a good bowl of pho, but there are few dishes that you can ingest three days worth of sodium in less than 15 minutes. Go figure the generation who's probably been chastised by their doctor about shitty eating habits shuns it.
This is like asking why vegans aren't eating McDonalds.
And that meaning changed since Roman times. Actually, it gained an additional one.
Guess what: Language develops. Let's ask someone who should know.
If I "decimate" 1 in 10 of an approaching army, I've not even won the fucking battle, let alone the war. Common sense.
If you're looking for what has truly changed over time, that would be mans ability to warp the shit out of language and definition.
Is there a medical breakthrough here? I certainly hope so. Can't tell yet 'cause someone "killed it" in the marketing department.
We've watched companies like Dragon Systems struggle to perfect speech recognition software.
Decades later, we watched Siri struggle to understand the proverbial brogue associated with converting various languages to English, falling victim to parody videos.
Now, I'm supposed to believe we've magically eclipsed all that to type with my brain? This is like NASA claiming we've gone straight to plaid with regards to fast space travel.
There's a valid reason we're all still banging away on keyboards in the year 2017.
The headphones aren't collecting any data. The App is, it's just another app selling your information. That's what apps are for!
Is the app collecting and selling your information without the headphones?
If not, then you're splitting cunt hairs over this, and the headline is more accurate than you assume.
Replacing cheaper hardware every year or two tends to add up, which confirms your initial statement; you get what you pay for.
I'm not going to cry over a pair of $10 to $20 headphones when they self-destruct from day-to-day use. I'll toss them out, pull another one out from the storage closet, and order some more if I need to. Why spend more money on something you're going have to replace anyway?
My point was more centered around the fact that headphones are not a product you have to replace often if you get a quality pair, unless you tend to beat the shit out of them during day-to-day usage. Mine sit on my desk and I use them quite often, which is why sound quality and comfort are key factors for me. To each their own. Cheers.
Good grief, listen to yourself. How can a $5000 product be a "disruptive force" competing with products costing $200 and doing the same thing?
How can an $5000 television set become a "disruptive force" within the industry competing with products costing $200 and doing the same thing?
Let's not sit here and pretend that HDTVs didn't cost thousands of dollars when they first hit the market. The simple fact is most never-before-seen-too-cool-to-be-true technology is initially sold at considerably higher prices.
To use the infamous car analogy, there's a reason people are collectively losing their shit over the thought of a a $35,000 Tesla automobile; because it ultimately saves money by not having excess run costs related to traditional power sources. A dryer performing five times better than a traditional heat-based design does present an ROI argument when you consider a dryer is an appliance you keep for a very long time.
I typically spend $1 to $2 for headphones.
Those usually fall apart pretty quickly. The $10 to $20 headphones give me the durability I need for the year or two that they are usable.
My Sennheisers are over 15 years old now. Paid $150 and they still sound great.
Replacing cheaper hardware every year or two tends to add up, which confirms your initial statement; you get what you pay for.
I mean, ISPs can do it, so why can't they?
Users of ISPs likely agreed to their monitoring via a EULA they didn't read.
IANAL, but on the surface it appears that Bose fucked up by not even offering up a EULA for no one to read.
It was stated it consumes less energy, does not produce unnecessary heat.. I get you are fine with your current machine, but why shouldn't we improve what we have?
We should look to improve on what we have.
The problem is often how we go about introducing it. This will likely be a considerable disruptive move within the industry that has made traditional heat-based machines for decades now. A monopoly driven into the industry secured by patents may not prove to be a benefit for all those employed in the industry. For consumers, neither will a $5000 price tag.
They took a hit when Trump announced "Cancel Order!" to their Air Force one bid. Our entire economy is built around short term stock bumps because most CEO pay is in bonuses and stock options (so that they don't have to pay income tax on it).
Boy, it sure is a good thing that their projects don't last long, and they never have to think about the impact of short-sighted stupid decisions in the long run. I mean, how long do you really need an engineer to design an airplane? Surely no longer than a fiscal quarters worth of stock bumps, right?
/sarcasm
That in itself would be a very interesting result and not something I can see the average american agreeing with.
Interesting? The interesting part would be finding the average American still gives a shit enough to do something about protecting the Constitution.
A lack of action against unconstitutional actions that take place every day tends to imply that The People are agreeing with it.
"...The nonpartisan site traces $5.4 trillion in government spending under four categories derived from language in the US Constitution...
Well, that's certainly one way to upgrade the status of the Constitution from ignored to illegal.
Can't imagine this kind of prodding into the spending habits of our not-so-transparent government will go over well...
>the people don't care about secure products >headlines and drama everywhere
Only one of these can be true.
Since when? People don't care about secure products (e.g. free apps and voice automation), and they eat up bullshit drama and hype (e.g. "reality" TV).
Hell, even mainstream media has jumped all over the fake news bandwagon, because it's all the rage these days. Clicks mean more than facts now.
The state gets significant revenue by licensing and fuel and other. Don't think everyone will give it up so easy. Driving is as much of a perceived right as gun ownership.
Once autonomous driving safety records outshine humans behind the wheel by a considerable margin, there will be a price to pay to maintain the luxury of human driving, in much the same way you pay a premium today for the luxury of driving around a 1960's sports car that doesn't have any airbags, ABS, anti-theft, or other modern features that qualify as deductibles.
People won't give it up because they want to. They may give it up because they have to, due to liability and greed.
...If Uber pulls off what they're trying to do they'll become the defacto transportation system for basically the entire modern world. Now, any sane society would just have public transportation instead of "Public Transportation with a private company skimming 20% off the top...
Part of what makes Uber unique is the fact that they employ humans, which is a considerable benefit for any sane society to see value in.
If Uber "pulls off" autonomous vehicles (essentially the only road to a sustainable business model), they fucking will be public transportation with a greedy company skimming 20% off the top.
The larger concern is they may force all other competition off the proverbial road in the process, ensuring that your "defacto" option is the only monopoly in town. You thought cab fares were bad? Wait until that shit happens and insurance companies make it financially impossible to afford to own a car or let a "dangerous" human drive one.
Welcome to public transportation circa 2020.
Loading and saving programs onto cassette tape. Those were the days.
Also a Timex Sinclair 1000 around the same time (early 80's). Then came the Apple IIc in '84. Still have that one.
Just as it should be. BK isn't "legitimizing triggering digital assistants", they are exposing serious flaws in poorly thought out technology.
You're missing the point. Because BK will likely not suffer any legal action against them for this stunt, they are in fact legitimizing the activity of triggering digital assistants. A lack of legal action or punishment can easily set a precedent.
And they aren't exposing jack shit because no one cares.
BK is not to be blamed but thanked; the people who would allow themselves to be exposed to such triggering and the companies that makes the shoddy products are the problem.
Thanked? That's a laugh. Who gives a shit enough to thank them?
As I said before, the people don't care about secure products, and haven't given a shit about security in a very long time. They still choose shitty passwords no matter how much we tell them about the consequences. They share their entire digital lives online for the world to see. They will gladly demand that an app be free in exchange for sharing everything they do with it.
This product does not have a problem. It's working exactly the way the people want it to, and with no bothersome password.
Because of this, nothing will change.
...The only way to clean up the mess is to point out the flaws to the point that people don't WANT an always-on voice command system. And the only way that happens is if people find it more annoying than helpful.
People have always found passwords to be annoying. So much so that the "top 10 worst passwords" lists haven't really changed in decades. Yes, the same fucking stupid behavior of picking a shitty password has been passed on through generations of computer users. Identity theft on the rise because of it? Sure. People still don't give a shit.
In short, there is no fixing this. People WANT insecurity. They WANT to be lazy. It's the entire fucking reason they paid good money for an always-on voice command system that has no need for an annoying password to sit in the privacy of their home.
consider the difference between addiction and habituation. being addicted to morphine is different to being too lazy to find any other avenues of entertainment or socializing than snapchat or twitter.
Uh, too lazy?
I challenge you to approach the average teenager and force them to shut down all of their social media accounts and confiscate their smartphone in order to "go outside and play". See how their behavior is categorized as mere laziness or boredom.
Habitual behavior is often a clear sign of addiction.
Oh, please. Caffeine addiction is more serious than smartphone 'addiction.'
And yet one statistic proves this statement is utter bullshit; Distracted Driving.
I seriously doubt caffeine can eclipse the number of fatalities and injuries caused every day due to addicts banging away on their smartphones while behind the wheel.
This is more a case of children failing to be taught self-control, or escapism as a crutch. Both should be dealt with (or the cause of it, in the latter's case), but treating it like an addiction probably isn't going to help.
A parent addicted to a drug finds their child is bothering them too much, wanting their attention. Often, what's the answer? Give the child the drug. The addict knows what the immediate benefit is to them; they won't be bothered anymore. The addict also fails to see a problem with their solution.
Now, replace "drug" with "smartphone." This is addiction, and needs to be treated as such, and probably for more than just the children.