Let's get away from the bus paradigm altogether. Use small (self-driving) vehicles to move people, instead of large buses. Small vehicles are more flexible and don't clog up traffic as much. They can be disinfected easily between uses by providing wipes or a spray for each new patron to clean the surfaces with.
Instead of a single bus driving around picking people up and dropping them off, have stands with small electric vehicles for individuals. Instead of waiting for a bus, you go to a stand and check out a vehicle and drive it to where you want. Or it drives itself. With self-driving electric vehicles, you could keep all the stands in supply.
What about mirror neurons? The brain can act on the story, producing an effect that feels the same as actually dropping a ball on your foot.
Take a placebo for asthma, then actually take asthma. Studies show that the perceived effect is the same. Thus, if you believe in it enough, your brain can fool you into believing any model.
Next program those models in holodecks, and you can actually experience a ball falling on your foot, when you're only "reading" a holonovel.
So does that mean that "Oh, really?" could also have been answered "yes", thereby disproving the statement that any headline question can be answered with "no"; or is the "no" denying the truth of the original assertion.
The idea of an ongoing struggle between results-oriented managers and technical visionaries is not new. Economist and sociologist Thorstein Veblen noted it in his 1904 book The Theory of Business Enterprise.1 Eighty-some years later, John Kenneth Galbraith cited Veblen's view to describe a dynamic still at work in a more modern economy:
"The businessmen, for good or ill, keep the talents and tendencies of the scientists and engineers under control and suppress them as necessary in order to maintain prices and maximize profits. From this view of the business firm, in turn, comes an obvious conclusion: somehow release those who are technically and imaginatively proficient from the restraints imposed by the business system and there will be unprecedented productivity and wealth in the economy."
Cryptocurrencies in their current incarnation are so stupid because they suck power needlessly, to create something of psychological value only because it is scarce. They are increasing scarcity of power, to create a psychological unit assigned a psychological value because it is scarce. It doesn't make sense, not economically, physically, scientifically.
The only way bitcoin makes sense is psychologically, and the psychology is a sociopathic, "I got mine Jack keep your hands off my stack" pathology. It is creating a number and calling it valuable, and taking up energy for this psychological money creation exercise.
It would be a little better if they were actually advancing knowledge with their mining operations. Make it like SETI@home, have it do some processing that helps us know more about the universe.
We produce a huge food surplus. There is no opportunity cost.
The capital investment can be volunteered, or supplied by government which can finance spending at zero cost by borrowing from the Fed, which returns interest to the Treasury and can keep the loans rolling over forever.
Wikipedia required a capital investment, but effectively its articles are being handed out for free. Why not robots?
It has a psychological effect because ignorant economists use limited knowledge about the universe to justify austerity policies. Friedman using TANSTAAFL, for example. Except now Dark Energy violates TANSTAAFL, and it didn't hold in General Relativity anyway. So we suffer from an artificially imposed scarcity of money because economists suffer from a lack of knowledge about the universe.
Yes, like Simon Newcomb proved we had hit limits in heavier-than-air flight, in 1903!
In the October 22, 1903, issue of The Independent, Newcomb made the well-known remark that "May not our mechanicians . . . be ultimately forced to admit that aerial flight is one of the great class of problems with which man can never cope, and give up all attempts to grapple with it?"
The problem is that the "new environments" you mention are mostly social. You have to fit in with the company, because most of the non-human-interfacing parts have been automated. So work becomes a social network, rather than about efficiency of production. If you aren't good at social skills, you have no place in the modern business world.
So let government provide a basic income, and let the socially awkward innovate disruptively on their own, without the pressure to try to fake "normality".
I'll start with the last: the Constitution expressly grants the government the power to coin money, and regulate the value thereof. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
The market does not lift everyone out of poverty, even when the surplus produced allows it. That is when Government should step in to create money to help people in need.
As for Hoover, he didn't do enough. Addicted to balanced budget fetishism, he raised taxes in a depression. Expansionist monetary policy was needed, or fiscal deficits. Hoover was ideologically opposed to such measures. Roosevelt went a little farther but his reticence on spending probably caused the Depression to drag on.
That the government could sustain deficits was proved by World War II.
Your wikipedia quote does not present a neutral point of view. It's an ideologically-inspired rewrite of history by shameless libertarians. Wikipedia editors, please take note.
Buy one, or make it yourself from open source plans, and it will replicate. Or 3D print one. Cost of robot effectively drops to zero, like making a baby.
The market works against such sharing, of course. Managers (not the engineers themselves) impose artificial restrictions such as copyrights, patents, trade secrets. The market wants to hoard information, which is not in the General Welfare. Government should balance such a market approach by providing means for individuals to share with each other openly.
We have reached the technological stage where we easily produce enough surplus to give everyone a decent standard of living. If some person withholds food for purely ideological reasons, choosing to let it rot while people starve, he is being sociopathic. Government is mandated to feed people when they are starving. The market is not.
Slashdot Mirror
I think there's enough plastic crap all over the US that we wouldn't have to import the resin. Recycle.
3D-print it at home.
Lesson: the US government should be doing far more investment in firms like Solyndra, to catch up with the Chinese government.
Right, because if you aren't talking about global warming, you won't breathe either!
Let's get away from the bus paradigm altogether. Use small (self-driving) vehicles to move people, instead of large buses. Small vehicles are more flexible and don't clog up traffic as much. They can be disinfected easily between uses by providing wipes or a spray for each new patron to clean the surfaces with.
Instead of a single bus driving around picking people up and dropping them off, have stands with small electric vehicles for individuals. Instead of waiting for a bus, you go to a stand and check out a vehicle and drive it to where you want. Or it drives itself. With self-driving electric vehicles, you could keep all the stands in supply.
Pretty sure those runaways were caused by morons who put their floormats over the accelerator, not software.
Newton's mechanics can't build a GPS. Things we use everyday use physics Newton's alone can't predict or preduce.
What about mirror neurons? The brain can act on the story, producing an effect that feels the same as actually dropping a ball on your foot.
Take a placebo for asthma, then actually take asthma. Studies show that the perceived effect is the same. Thus, if you believe in it enough, your brain can fool you into believing any model.
Next program those models in holodecks, and you can actually experience a ball falling on your foot, when you're only "reading" a holonovel.
So does that mean that "Oh, really?" could also have been answered "yes", thereby disproving the statement that any headline question can be answered with "no"; or is the "no" denying the truth of the original assertion.
Xerox PARC didn't break even. But it contributed interfaces still in use.
Why does capitalism reward leaches so lucratively?
From Bridging the Gap Between Stewards and Creators.
Great example of the perverse incentives of capitalism. Selling provides a higher return than investing in technical innovation.
Cryptocurrencies in their current incarnation are so stupid because they suck power needlessly, to create something of psychological value only because it is scarce. They are increasing scarcity of power, to create a psychological unit assigned a psychological value because it is scarce. It doesn't make sense, not economically, physically, scientifically.
The only way bitcoin makes sense is psychologically, and the psychology is a sociopathic, "I got mine Jack keep your hands off my stack" pathology. It is creating a number and calling it valuable, and taking up energy for this psychological money creation exercise.
It would be a little better if they were actually advancing knowledge with their mining operations. Make it like SETI@home, have it do some processing that helps us know more about the universe.
We produce a huge food surplus. There is no opportunity cost.
The capital investment can be volunteered, or supplied by government which can finance spending at zero cost by borrowing from the Fed, which returns interest to the Treasury and can keep the loans rolling over forever.
Wikipedia required a capital investment, but effectively its articles are being handed out for free. Why not robots?
It has a psychological effect because ignorant economists use limited knowledge about the universe to justify austerity policies. Friedman using TANSTAAFL, for example. Except now Dark Energy violates TANSTAAFL, and it didn't hold in General Relativity anyway. So we suffer from an artificially imposed scarcity of money because economists suffer from a lack of knowledge about the universe.
The universe seems to be expanding faster and faster. Dark Energy is coming from nowhere to do that work.
Didn't you get the memo? Hemp seeds are better than graphene. Plus you can get high while growing the seeds.
Yes, like Simon Newcomb proved we had hit limits in heavier-than-air flight, in 1903!
The problem is that the "new environments" you mention are mostly social. You have to fit in with the company, because most of the non-human-interfacing parts have been automated. So work becomes a social network, rather than about efficiency of production. If you aren't good at social skills, you have no place in the modern business world.
So let government provide a basic income, and let the socially awkward innovate disruptively on their own, without the pressure to try to fake "normality".
"there was a vast layoff of "middlemen financial types" at the end of the financial bubble."
Aw, did they get their multimillion dollar bonuses first at least?
I'll start with the last: the Constitution expressly grants the government the power to coin money, and regulate the value thereof. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
The market does not lift everyone out of poverty, even when the surplus produced allows it. That is when Government should step in to create money to help people in need.
As for Hoover, he didn't do enough. Addicted to balanced budget fetishism, he raised taxes in a depression. Expansionist monetary policy was needed, or fiscal deficits. Hoover was ideologically opposed to such measures. Roosevelt went a little farther but his reticence on spending probably caused the Depression to drag on.
That the government could sustain deficits was proved by World War II.
Your wikipedia quote does not present a neutral point of view. It's an ideologically-inspired rewrite of history by shameless libertarians. Wikipedia editors, please take note.
Buy one, or make it yourself from open source plans, and it will replicate. Or 3D print one. Cost of robot effectively drops to zero, like making a baby.
The market works against such sharing, of course. Managers (not the engineers themselves) impose artificial restrictions such as copyrights, patents, trade secrets. The market wants to hoard information, which is not in the General Welfare. Government should balance such a market approach by providing means for individuals to share with each other openly.
We have reached the technological stage where we easily produce enough surplus to give everyone a decent standard of living. If some person withholds food for purely ideological reasons, choosing to let it rot while people starve, he is being sociopathic. Government is mandated to feed people when they are starving. The market is not.