Fact is, if you told the average person that they'd never have to go to work again, they would NOT do the things that they do as part of their working life
Well of course, this is why you have to pay them to work and charge admission to have fun.
Cheers for this! The tired old "OMG all the jobs will be gone" horse gets trotted out on/. every few months and whipped. Only a real negative nellie would fear the prospect of a future filled with more and more low-cost widely available goods and services. That's called being rich.
It seems to me, if you are motivated enough to buy this device and set up the app, you don't need it. Someone who might benefit from it isn't going to care enough to buy it.
The question is whether the sort of scenario you describe is particularly likely compared to accidents that the robots would prevent. What if robots got rid of 90% of accidents? Would that be worth it? I am not taking a side on it, it will be interesting to see what happens. We might find that there are all sorts of accidents that a human avoids without thinking, and are thus very rare. But then the robots start having accidents in the same situations causing the rate of something like basketball kids getting hit to go way up.
It may be that we will see robotic driving on highways where they have the advantage and human driving once off the highway where humans have the advantage.
I call this the 'Executive Paradox'. At least on paper, the exec's time is extremely valuable. So if he is trying to bring up a presentation to say the Board of Directors (whose time is also extremely valuable) and has a password problem, a lot of extremely valuable time is wasted. So it is a lot riskier to impose security controls on senior managers than it is on lower level folks whose time isn't quite as valuable. The risk of a breach resulting from executive policy exceptions has to be weighed against the cost of any controls that result in wasted executive time.
Bruce Schneier has mentioned this issue as well, his solution was to write them down and keep the paper in your wallet. After all, do you have anything that you take more care with than your wallet? I do this with some passwords, the paper doesn't specify what they are. While someone might guess they are passwords, it is some more work to figure out for what. yes, still not impossible, but breaking into my house isn't impossible either.
There are an infinite number of useful ideas, almost none of them end up as for-sale products or services. It all comes down to the ability to deliver something people want to trade for, which is far less common than simply having a useful idea.. Think of it like the peacock's tail: a simple demonstration that the bearer is strong enough to be worth considering.
They generated this whole vortex thing using HAARP in an effort to get Snowden over in Russia. Hey, 'off by one hemisphere' is good enough for government work!
I believe what he said was he no longer has any of the documents in question, and he could not turn them over to any possible asylum provider even if he wanted to.
Well no one likes competition and there are plenty of people already watching everything, as you point out. Of course they will use the courts to regulate away competition just like they do in every other field.
A similar sort of experience I have had: the signs all say "laptops must be removed from carry ons and placed in the tray" so I leave my kindle, and tablet in the bag. They aren't laptops. Of course I get hassled when it comes time for the scan, my bag is full of large electronics. I guess no one explained to the rule and sign makers that a laptop wasn't the only kind of large electronic device.
don't train teachers to fundamentally change the way they teach
An excellent synopsis of your point I think. Throwing money and technology at education doesn't necessarily improve results, no matter how you measure them. You made me recall Flip Teaching which seems to me might be a good approach for leveraging things like iPads.
I got the whole RS course for $230 on sale, this is overpriced? I've found it reasonably effective, with practice. I have never heard of Assimil though, I will take a look.
At first I assumed from the headline that the parents wanted it removed since junior was playing on the Internet during class instead of learning. I was saddened to learn the real reason, as discussed in all the other posts.
I've watched the transition to online news over my lifetime, and I don't think your proposal would only work if the news provider was entirely funded by subscribers. i.e. no advertising or other revenue enhancements. With ad-funded news, you aren't the real customer either, you (specifically your attention) are the product. The current changes are just extensions of that trend towards complete crap that I've watched my whole life. Same applies to ad-funded entertainment.
Can you point to any studies that show these things are an advantage in education for the regular student? Just curious, I have seen some older data that suggests they are not, but that was regarding PC usage. I have a nephew with an eye problem who I think has benefited from the school-issued iPad, but he mostly plays games on it just like everyone else.
The old way was that formal news could be trusted to a certain extent. Now we see that this isn't true. It is too late for the old people who can't learn new tricks, just like the passing generation that can't program their VCRs. (Yes, I date myself with that comparison.) The kids will grow up knowing to check things themselves. As a side note, I noticed just yesterday that Facebook sometimes has the Snopes article listed as a 'suggested link' just below someone's repost of a hoax link!
Slashdot Mirror
Fact is, if you told the average person that they'd never have to go to work again, they would NOT do the things that they do as part of their working life
Well of course, this is why you have to pay them to work and charge admission to have fun.
Cheers for this! The tired old "OMG all the jobs will be gone" horse gets trotted out on /. every few months and whipped. Only a real negative nellie would fear the prospect of a future filled with more and more low-cost widely available goods and services. That's called being rich.
But can a network relying on such assurances survive in the long run?
Are there other networks we use that rely on such assurances? ICANN comes to mind.
It seems to me, if you are motivated enough to buy this device and set up the app, you don't need it. Someone who might benefit from it isn't going to care enough to buy it.
How did you determine that it was doing a better job?
How exactly is liability in the computer industry artificially limited by the government?
The question is whether the sort of scenario you describe is particularly likely compared to accidents that the robots would prevent. What if robots got rid of 90% of accidents? Would that be worth it? I am not taking a side on it, it will be interesting to see what happens. We might find that there are all sorts of accidents that a human avoids without thinking, and are thus very rare. But then the robots start having accidents in the same situations causing the rate of something like basketball kids getting hit to go way up.
It may be that we will see robotic driving on highways where they have the advantage and human driving once off the highway where humans have the advantage.
He was saying your GF's 4 yr old was stupid, not that the protection is stupid.
I call this the 'Executive Paradox'. At least on paper, the exec's time is extremely valuable. So if he is trying to bring up a presentation to say the Board of Directors (whose time is also extremely valuable) and has a password problem, a lot of extremely valuable time is wasted. So it is a lot riskier to impose security controls on senior managers than it is on lower level folks whose time isn't quite as valuable. The risk of a breach resulting from executive policy exceptions has to be weighed against the cost of any controls that result in wasted executive time.
Bruce Schneier has mentioned this issue as well, his solution was to write them down and keep the paper in your wallet. After all, do you have anything that you take more care with than your wallet? I do this with some passwords, the paper doesn't specify what they are. While someone might guess they are passwords, it is some more work to figure out for what. yes, still not impossible, but breaking into my house isn't impossible either.
There are an infinite number of useful ideas, almost none of them end up as for-sale products or services. It all comes down to the ability to deliver something people want to trade for, which is far less common than simply having a useful idea.. Think of it like the peacock's tail: a simple demonstration that the bearer is strong enough to be worth considering.
They generated this whole vortex thing using HAARP in an effort to get Snowden over in Russia. Hey, 'off by one hemisphere' is good enough for government work!
I believe what he said was he no longer has any of the documents in question, and he could not turn them over to any possible asylum provider even if he wanted to.
Well no one likes competition and there are plenty of people already watching everything, as you point out. Of course they will use the courts to regulate away competition just like they do in every other field.
A similar sort of experience I have had: the signs all say "laptops must be removed from carry ons and placed in the tray" so I leave my kindle, and tablet in the bag. They aren't laptops. Of course I get hassled when it comes time for the scan, my bag is full of large electronics. I guess no one explained to the rule and sign makers that a laptop wasn't the only kind of large electronic device.
instead of a war on the far more dangerous Automobiles, Happy Meals, The Flu, Bathroom Falls, Lightning, etc
Judging by the results of the Wars on poverty, drugs, and terrorism, your proposal would simply result in MORE cars, flus, and happy meals.
That is the very first thing the parent mentioned. Bourée is a Tull piece
don't train teachers to fundamentally change the way they teach
An excellent synopsis of your point I think. Throwing money and technology at education doesn't necessarily improve results, no matter how you measure them. You made me recall Flip Teaching which seems to me might be a good approach for leveraging things like iPads.
I got the whole RS course for $230 on sale, this is overpriced? I've found it reasonably effective, with practice. I have never heard of Assimil though, I will take a look.
Thanks, too bad DuoLingo doesn't have Mandarin Chinese.
At first I assumed from the headline that the parents wanted it removed since junior was playing on the Internet during class instead of learning. I was saddened to learn the real reason, as discussed in all the other posts.
When are people going to start demanding Authority AND Accountability instead of sound-bite entertainment?
They are never going to. And this is why democracy doesn't work.
I've watched the transition to online news over my lifetime, and I don't think your proposal would only work if the news provider was entirely funded by subscribers. i.e. no advertising or other revenue enhancements. With ad-funded news, you aren't the real customer either, you (specifically your attention) are the product. The current changes are just extensions of that trend towards complete crap that I've watched my whole life. Same applies to ad-funded entertainment.
Can you point to any studies that show these things are an advantage in education for the regular student? Just curious, I have seen some older data that suggests they are not, but that was regarding PC usage. I have a nephew with an eye problem who I think has benefited from the school-issued iPad, but he mostly plays games on it just like everyone else.
The old way was that formal news could be trusted to a certain extent. Now we see that this isn't true. It is too late for the old people who can't learn new tricks, just like the passing generation that can't program their VCRs. (Yes, I date myself with that comparison.) The kids will grow up knowing to check things themselves. As a side note, I noticed just yesterday that Facebook sometimes has the Snopes article listed as a 'suggested link' just below someone's repost of a hoax link!