Instead of having one engineer/teacher/police officer making 70k, have 2 making 35k with each having more free time
2 will not be enough - what one learns makes one's job easier, or even possible, later But if it is another person that did the learning, you have to learn from him. Some things are very difficult to teach - for those you need more than 3 to replace 2.
That sounds like a rather big project to me, creating a LOT of new job opportunities and eliminating "overcrowding" on the current planet.
But at this point robots are better than humans at practically any job - even on earth - so why would there be any job opportunities for humans?
In non-earth environment, humans are non-starters. Humans need some special gas which is highly corrosive (second strongest elemental oxidising agent) to "breathe". The whole body must be surrounded by a gas pressure between 70,000 - 150,000 pascals and even that must not vary fast. Will make huge mistakes in simplest of jobs if done for a 20 hours or more at a stretch. And a million more limitations that robots just won't have - or have much simpler needs.
In an orderly society with civil courts, Mr. Smith would need to defend himself in court. I think the existence of civil courts is a completely separate concept from economic constructs like corporations.
Yes, and then Mr Smith says in the court that I use components from Mr Blacksmith and Mr Whitesmith - who in turn name the full spectrum of Smiths they use goods/services that may have caused the death of the victim.
Whatever decision the court comes up with, it is sure to be a messy affair. And this mess , not any punishment, is enough for people to assume that if someone is selling something, the someone is not really responsible for its quality or even safety of the something. One person couldn't possibly have tested all scenarios.
In such an environment, sales pitches turn funny. Buy thingamajig - it might turn out be good for all you know!!!
Are you assuming the price of goods and services will remain the same after everyone starts receiving $2000 a month free? Where is the analysis with altered prices?
Or do you mean only you receive the free money because you are a special snowflake?
Rather a disincentive to building autonomous vehicles don't you think?
Yes, the laws have to be bought first. Not that they are very expensive in terms of money - but they do transfer a lot of additional power from the people to the corporate-governmental nexus.
the autonomous car may decide that it's better to run over the person who'll be dead
Except that he has a hand-held or body-tied drone that activates when he is 8 feet above ground, carries him back up after letting him barely touch the ground.
their ability to react faster is one that will eventually allow them to exceed our capabilities
And their being controlled by corporations via closed source, secret software will eventually transfer more power to the oneness that is Government/corporations.
and new features will be added as the software matures
That is the problem. Credible testing starts when software updates stop. Any updates nullify all testing done so far, at least for closed source hence black box testing.
Calc but requires us to set up ODBC connections for each database and each user's machine. It saves a great deal of development time for us as the users
When you use the word "us" - the first person plural, someone talking to you can use "you" - the second person plural : for the same concept. So the equivalent of the "you" addressed to you from your perspective can be "I", or "Us", or even "We" at times.
Both kinds of office are extremely inefficient and require a lot of training to use effectively.
False. One of them provides intrinsic training for free
False. "One of them" doesn't provide intrinsic training, society provides training at the cost of other software that cannot be changed at the whim of a single corporation.
Their interface has been stable since the introduction of the ribbon
And until next time Microsoft finds it profitable to change the interface.
Yes, I replied to the wrong post. I replied to myself, just 11 minutes before this reply of yours, hoping to clarify - https://slashdot.org/comments.....
You surely have peer reviewed research to support your argument rather than religious fervour. Unfortunately stupid Slashdot forgot to include the citation in your post - can you post again? This time hopefully Slashdot will include your citation.
How does he know the login credentials are real? And one person can have many real login credentials - how does he know these login credentials can be used to do serious stuff?
Second of all, official HAES principles are posted online. Number 4 is "Promote flexible, individualized eating based on hunger, satiety, nutritional needs, and pleasure, rather than any externally regulated eating plan focused on weight control."
Mainstream, scientifically-based dietitians, nutrition scientists and medical doctors advise diets for weight control all the time. The standard treatment for anorexia nervosa is to first and foremost enforce a diet which brings weight back up to healthy levels. The standard treatment for an obese woman showing Pseudotumor cerebri is to lose weight. Etc.
That would come under the heading of "pleasure". It need not always be short term pleasure while eating - the displeasure of disease is great, so modifying diet to get rid of disease is modifying it for "pleasure"
Slashdot Mirror
Instead of having one engineer/teacher/police officer making 70k, have 2 making 35k with each having more free time
2 will not be enough - what one learns makes one's job easier, or even possible, later But if it is another person that did the learning, you have to learn from him. Some things are very difficult to teach - for those you need more than 3 to replace 2.
Study? Sure, you need to.
Machine spit will be much nastier.
That sounds like a rather big project to me, creating a LOT of new job opportunities and eliminating "overcrowding" on the current planet.
But at this point robots are better than humans at practically any job - even on earth - so why would there be any job opportunities for humans?
In non-earth environment, humans are non-starters. Humans need some special gas which is highly corrosive (second strongest elemental oxidising agent) to "breathe". The whole body must be surrounded by a gas pressure between 70,000 - 150,000 pascals and even that must not vary fast. Will make huge mistakes in simplest of jobs if done for a 20 hours or more at a stretch. And a million more limitations that robots just won't have - or have much simpler needs.
In an orderly society with civil courts, Mr. Smith would need to defend himself in court. I think the existence of civil courts is a completely separate concept from economic constructs like corporations.
Yes, and then Mr Smith says in the court that I use components from Mr Blacksmith and Mr Whitesmith - who in turn name the full spectrum of Smiths they use goods/services that may have caused the death of the victim.
Whatever decision the court comes up with, it is sure to be a messy affair. And this mess , not any punishment, is enough for people to assume that if someone is selling something, the someone is not really responsible for its quality or even safety of the something. One person couldn't possibly have tested all scenarios.
In such an environment, sales pitches turn funny. Buy thingamajig - it might turn out be good for all you know!!!
Are you assuming the price of goods and services will remain the same after everyone starts receiving $2000 a month free? Where is the analysis with altered prices?
Or do you mean only you receive the free money because you are a special snowflake?
So, a car can drive itself around but it cannot wash itself from the inside? And change its seat covers (and assorted other covers) ?
Do you read your own post?
Self washing car, even from inside, is a much much easier problem to solve than self driving car.
Oops, not even responsibility, just liability. Not going to cut it.
Yes, read carefully. Volvo is accepting full responsibility - not a human being. Volvo cannot be jailed or electric-chaired.
Come back when a human in his own senses is ready to accept full responsibility - including in the death-penalty states.
Rather a disincentive to building autonomous vehicles don't you think?
Yes, the laws have to be bought first. Not that they are very expensive in terms of money - but they do transfer a lot of additional power from the people to the corporate-governmental nexus.
the autonomous car may decide that it's better to run over the person who'll be dead
Except that he has a hand-held or body-tied drone that activates when he is 8 feet above ground, carries him back up after letting him barely touch the ground.
their ability to react faster is one that will eventually allow them to exceed our capabilities
And their being controlled by corporations via closed source, secret software will eventually transfer more power to the oneness that is Government/corporations.
and new features will be added as the software matures
That is the problem. Credible testing starts when software updates stop. Any updates nullify all testing done so far, at least for closed source hence black box testing.
Free grammar lessons. Take it or leave it.
Those who "leave it" are sometimes described as stupid. But not by me.
Calc but requires us to set up ODBC connections for each database and each user's machine. It saves a great deal of development time for us as the users
When you use the word "us" - the first person plural, someone talking to you can use "you" - the second person plural : for the same concept. So the equivalent of the "you" addressed to you from your perspective can be "I", or "Us", or even "We" at times.
Both kinds of office are extremely inefficient and require a lot of training to use effectively.
False. One of them provides intrinsic training for free
False. "One of them" doesn't provide intrinsic training, society provides training at the cost of other software that cannot be changed at the whim of a single corporation.
Their interface has been stable since the introduction of the ribbon
And until next time Microsoft finds it profitable to change the interface.
Or say that the Italian Military won, and Ribbon lost?
Yes, I replied to the wrong post. I replied to myself, just 11 minutes before this reply of yours, hoping to clarify - https://slashdot.org/comments.....
period
You surely have peer reviewed research to support your argument rather than religious fervour. Unfortunately stupid Slashdot forgot to include the citation in your post - can you post again? This time hopefully Slashdot will include your citation.
thanks
Sorry, meant to reply to parent of your post.
Religious fervour detected, citation needed.
How does he know the login credentials are real? And one person can have many real login credentials - how does he know these login credentials can be used to do serious stuff?
Second of all, official HAES principles are posted online. Number 4 is "Promote flexible, individualized eating based on hunger, satiety, nutritional needs, and pleasure, rather than any externally regulated eating plan focused on weight control."
Mainstream, scientifically-based dietitians, nutrition scientists and medical doctors advise diets for weight control all the time. The standard treatment for anorexia nervosa is to first and foremost enforce a diet which brings weight back up to healthy levels. The standard treatment for an obese woman showing Pseudotumor cerebri is to lose weight. Etc.
That would come under the heading of "pleasure". It need not always be short term pleasure while eating - the displeasure of disease is great, so modifying diet to get rid of disease is modifying it for "pleasure"
From your analogies you betray a 20 year old understanding of how learning works in humans. The world has moved on.