your router, your connection, your responsibility.
If you leave your wifi open, you do not suddenly become a common carrier yourself. ...
What about a cafe with free wifi? I don't know.
Whoa! Whoa there.
What kind of double-standard bullshit is this? A business offers free wifi and you "just don't know"? But if an individual offers free wifi, then it's all liability, responsibility, and child porn?
I understand the argument that the owner of a connection should be liable for that connection. I don't particularly agree. But this sort of double-standard where the masses get the full brunt of the law shoved down their throat but somehow when you tack on "LLC" to the defendant then there's a perfectly understandable grey area of plausible deniability and understandable limitations... It just kinda pisses me off, you know? If you're going to have bullshit rules you could at least apply them to everybody.
Little did Mr and Mrs smith realize, but as the amount of consumer buying power of the median household increases, so too does the cost of various consumer products, due to the intrinsic nature of the lw of supply and demand.
Here we see a simple graph, depicting the willingness to spend, intersecting the willingness of a merchant to sell.
As you can clearly see, that as Mr and Mrs smith's financial fortunes improve, their willingness to spend extra on products they routinely buy increases. The natural market reaction to this event, is the inevitable adjusted price offered by merchants.
I'm not entirely sold on this part here.
Sure, everyone has more money. That's essentially inflation. Demand for... everything... increases and prices go up.
But since everyone is working more, there's literally more supply. The abstracted merchant is selling things that are made by people working. Increased supply should lower prices.
As the median income increases, it's not necessarily the cost of goods that would go up. It could be the volume.
If I have an extra $5 bucks every week, I'd buy an extra beer, and the bar tender, trucker, brewer, farmer would profit that much more.
I don't see any market force that would cause them to charge more because business is good.
Now, I could see that if there's a bunch of poor slobs who suddenly get rich, that their tastes might change. Instead of living on mac'n'cheese and water, they'd buy steak and beer. The price MOST CERTAINLY goes up with that. But that's an entirely different effect than what you're describing here. If people wanted to live on one paycheck and eat mac'n'cheese, they could still do that. Maybe you could argue about efficiencies of scale and how a society is optimized towards a particular class, but that's not the same thing as merchants charging more because their clientele has more cash on hand.
I find your views of economics to be cynical and overly pessimistic. Your assumptions have introduced flaws into your argument.
But... yeah, I'd agree that women gaining rights and getting jobs has undermined the amount of effort we put into raising kids. I'd say it's time for fathers to help hold the baby.
Where is it written that cyber criminals can steal our identities...
It isn't..... that's illegal. If we catch you doing that you go to jail. But it's kinda hard to catch people doing that. It's called criminal enterprise. We will not allow corporations to openly be criminal enterprises. The rule of law persists, and if you break the law we will break you.
Great, and once they can run Dwarf fortress, Photoshop, Valgrind, Audacity, TrueCrypt, and display full video at a reasonable speed then it will be a valid replacement. I'll also need the ability to store all my stuff, run whatever programs I want, display to multiple screens, connect to some quality speakers (which could be over the HDMI if anyone would freaking MAKE them).
I was going to chuck in battery requirements, but I'm ok with it living on grid-power while docked, which is where it runs the heavy programs and sucks the most juice.
But yeah, props to the Android for doing what others cannot.
Yeah yeah, we've all heard about Doctrow's rant about the upcoming war. I think it's a little over the top.
But this article and discussion is actually about the form factor and not about who has the rights to execute what code.
While, yeah, keyboard/video/mouse is the age-old classic and simply the best interface we have right now. And you sit at a desk for this.
But I want something I can carry around to different desks. Something hand-held with a simple interface while on the go, BUT CAN ALSO interface to that k/v/m combo at a desk. And that thing would not be considered a "desktop PC".
(And replacing the KVM/IO configuration is the realm of direct neural interfaces that tap right into your brain, which is more sci-fi than fact right now.)
No, I'm trying to say that the "carrying capacity" of Wyoming depends on external factors, like how much food they can buy. You could measure a place by how much of one vital resource they have, (ignoring their ability to trade one resource for another) and that would be interesting, but it wouldn't dictate whether or not Wyoming is overcrowded. If you've got tunnel vision on water and food, EVERY CITY is horribly overcrowded, while rural areas have a ludicrous abundance.
My point is that you can't selectively look at a specific region when talking about resource scarcity. Cause, you know, we trade things.
My GOD! It's like they'd have to trade some of their delicious coal (they're our number one producer) in exchange for some of this corn I've got over here in Iowa. We've got, like, tons of it. No really, we've got so much food, we feed our food food, just so our food tastes a little better. Ok, a LOT better. mmmmm Steak.
Sorry, but while chemistry is involved, it isn't even approximately the same as love.
It's a subset. The chemicals would be the building blocks. Like how the elements of a turning complete language (if, loop, set) are the building blocks that compose the most advance artificial intelligence system. So AI is a subset of software. Likewise love is a subset of chemistry.
There's all sorts of subjects that are tied into software that pertain to AI, like documentation, feedback loops, unit testing, etc. And there are all sorts of subjects that are tied into chemistry that pertain to love: biology, neuroscience, sociology, porn.
So rather than saying computation requires an abacus, you should be saying computation requires math. Which it does.
If I were to say that love is nothing but a bunch of chemicals bumping around, it would be perfectly true.
The economy is nothing but a bunch of wealth shuffling about.
AI programs are nothing but a bunch of bits being flipped.
This view is pertinent here because the woo-woo crowd is trying to claim that there's some mystical magical additional force/quality/aspect to it which is beyond our ken. There is not. It really does boil down to something that simple.
Oh, that's because the DHS is full of shit and probably needs to be disbanded. They're stretching to find some way to justify their existence and they're seeing boogymen where there simply aren't. Or they're broadening the definition of "terrorism" to include anyone who comes off as crazy on the Internet (hoo boy, they're gonna be busy). In their defense, take roman_mir as an example: his rantings are similar to rants of other extremists and he's implying he wants to get rid of the "established powers". But terrorism? Naw. Voting for a guy that would tear down the entire system simply isn't terrorism. Even though the end result is the same, the fact that it's happening from within the system makes it legit.
No, no, roman_mir, while crazy, has a really good point. However, I was trying to address why he's routinely modded into oblivion. Even though he has a good point, he picks it up and carries it all the way to crazy town. He extrapolates his point out to places where it's comical. So far that it makes people doubt his original point and makes it hard for the rest of us to stand next to the crazy guy and argue that he's (partially) right.
Yeah, this is one of those problems that people have seen coming. Just to tweak your comments though:
While there may be a bell curve to intelligence, education CAN affect where that average lies. Now, there are natural geniuses out in desert that would have been math majors had they had any schooling, and given a chance they can pick up new things later on. And there are those who, despite a massive amount of effort from everyone involved, never quite grasp calculus. But on a society level, education makes more knowledge workers.
And intelligence means almost jack shit when it comes to owning. You seem to be making a few assumptions connecting owning a business, MBAs, and intelligence. Is "social intelligence" or your ability to shmooze really on the same scale?
in 2012, you can locate a factory anywhere
All the secretaries and paper routers lost their jobs in the late 80s/early 90s automation
And these are good things. This is progress. Imagine a world where we make robots do all the work. This could be a paradise. It's probably going to be a bumpy ride getting there. Exactly like there was some contention over where the extra money goes when the factory owners bought industrial tools in the industrial revolution, there will be a question over who gets what when we automate all the work away. But don't let that distract you. Progress is a good thing. It literally makes the products more affordable for everyone. It used to be that when you bought a car, some fraction of that cash had to go to pay for the boss's secretary. No more secretary means that car is that much more affordable. And, hopefully competiton or some other system means the customer reaps some of that efficiency.
[Manufacturing returns] And I hope it can be something that someone can build an entire career on
I just don't see that happening in the long run.
And that still leaves us with the original problem doesn't it?
Personally, I likewise see a division of work in the future. I think/hope it's going to break down like this:
Smart people. STEM jobs. Geeks. Like you said, the intelligent crowd. Everyone needs to be at least a little smart to be functional in society, like the ability to read, but it'll be the focus of these people.
Social people. Like, where they talk to each other and stuff. Polititians, managers, figureheads, correspondants, and yeah even walmart greeters. Anyone that interacts mainly with other peole. Everyone needs to be at least a little social to be functional in society, like the ability to converse with others, but it'll be the focus of these people.
Artsy people. The creative types. Yeah, that's right, I want my utopia to have murals'n'shit instead of featureless concrete. Unless you're into that. Does everyone need to be a little arsty? I dunno. I think someone with a zero value would be a psychology case study though.
Those are the big three ways people make their living. A lot of jobs will be a mix of more than one talent. Hopefully that'll span the majority of society. I don't think there's any upper limit to the amount of effort any of those three could absorb. Sure, the world only needs X amount of sprockets a year. But research? Art? PolitiuuuuhhI'll get back to you on that last one. But there are alternatives:
Menial labor. Sure, eventually robots could take everything, but for a really REALLY long time there's going to be random pidly stuff that anyone could do. Picking up garbage. Washing dogs. Being that person who screems "theif" if you steal shit, but ostensibly is there to "ring you up". There will be some jobs for people who can't do anything else.
The safety net. Hey man, we're approaching a post-scarcity society. Food and shelter can be had for dirt cheap if you're willing to live in that style. And as a
Daily briefings. What? The chief of police can't talk to the governor?
Is the boss of the state troopers barred from interacting with officials?
Also, neither I nor Google know what you mean by NIO. Let's guess at: National Intelligence Officer. Is this a mystical role that the police department just can't fill?
I am talking about NIOs that come in and brief the president daily over security threatrs and related issues. This is a role that fusion centers provide to state governments.
Also, if governors need to be briefed daily about "security theatrs", then we have a NATIONAL PROBLEM. If the problem is localized to that one state, then we still have a NATIONAL PROBLEM which is THAT STATE. Immigration problems being cracked down in Arizona will just shift to new mexico. A gang boss in Illinois being hounded by a governor (via his fusion center) will spend a weekend in Ohio and now the governor can't do jack shit. Unless, of course, you want the Utah special forces raiding homes in Vermont for... whatever the governor and congress of Utah feel like.
If this is some sort of argument for state rights, you're making a bad argument.
Fusion centers do not collect intelligence, they simply pass it along and analyze it.
"Pass it along" could be as simple as a form and a database. If they're analysts, then call them a crime lab. If they actually connect dots and find the bad guys, call them detectives. If you want them to work with the governor, call them an aide or a secretary.
But if you want a group of people that do the "intelligence" thing for "drug, organized crime, etc situations", we have plenty of organizations that already do that. If there's a problem with them stepping on each other's feet, Axe one. Repeat as necessary.
DHS treats Ron Paul supporters as 'terrorists'. Apparently at the minimum 15% of population of USA are on this terrorist list
Not crazy. These are good things to point out setting up your argument. The failings of DHS and Ron Paul are even on topic.
Also note that Republicans and Democrats always are very capable of 'putting their differences aside' when attacking a third party candidate,
Still on topic. And it's true. The two-party system is pretty busted and it protects the two-party system.
Is it because Ron Paul wouldn't go to war with Iran [youtube.com]?
Whoa there. That's kinda crazy. It's even said in that "I'm not going to say it, but leave it as a question" sort of way that Glenn Beck uses. At least you didn't end with "No, I don't think so. But it makes you think, doesn't it?".
Is it because Ron Paul is against the federal government telling people how to live their lives [youtube.com]? Some will say that leaving things up to States is wrong, they are missing the bigger point, that leaving things like that to federal government is completely wrong and unconstitutional. As to allowing people to deal with these issues on State level does not mean that the State should in fact interfere with people either! At the minimum there should be competition among States for residents.
Not that crazy. Ideally, sure, that'd be great. The insinuation that supporting state's rights paints Ron Paul as a terrorist is a little crazy though.
The Fed is the actual main tool of destruction of US economy with its inflationary policy.
Crazy. (and you've gone off topic). It's a tool that keeps the rich bankers rich, for sure, and it's got some shady dealings. But "the main tool" destroying the US economy? Please. That's just overboard. The Fed is indeed aware that too much inflation is bad and they try to have just as much as they can get away with. When it suits them. It's.... arguably a viable strategy. Arguably. But anyway, this sort of over the top accusation is exactly what makes you come off as bat-shit crazy. It's the tunnel vision where everything starts to tie back the one thing you don't like. Savings eaten by inflation? Damn the fed! Lost your job due to recession? Damn the fed! Burnt your toast this morning? Damn the fed! Can you spot the point where blaming the fed makes you look crazy? Can you spot the point where the fed is only partially responsible?
Gary Johnson...
Interesting. And this supports your argument that the two parties defends the two-party system. Good stuff
Why do you think it is that the 'debate' that may take place only includes the candidates from the 2 parties? Because it's 1 party
Pretty typical sentiment from the third-party lot. Not too crazy. Cynical, sure, but understandable.
and because the media is captured by the system.
Veering into crazy.
There is no freedom of press, there is no independent media, there is only a propaganda machine
We've entered crazy town.
it's meant to do one thing: keep the establishment in power.
And they'll continue to be in power as long as the alternative comes off as a mouth-foaming pitbull in a tin-foil cap.
Listen kiddo, here's the thing. You're more right than you are wrong. Is the two-party system broken? Yes. Is the Fed full of crooks? Yeah, probably. But the ways in which you are wrong are just SOOOOOOOO wrong that you're never going to get any traction. Politics is the art of getting people to agree with you. And you suck at it.
You sir, have delivered a sliver of calm rationalization into a festering pit of rage. As much as I hate any sort of justification for statements and ideas presented in the article, you have a point.
The only limitation I would say is that "value" (which I assume means ability to earn revenue) does not translate to into ability/right to steer company.
"Where the entire group wants to go" is actually a decision for the CEO/owners regardless of their "value". The example in the article, I think, would be the exception to the rule. A group of doctors coming together usually form a partnership of sorts where the workers are also the owners and decision makers. (Do... what do they call it? "Practices" have their own MBA-type they employ?) But for slashdot, we have engineers and businessmen. And steering the company is specifically a businessman's job. Same goes for most companies.
I have a friend in situation #2. I'm not sure it's exactly tied to shares, but he commands the biggest salary in the company. They tried firing him, twice. Putting a manager over him. Hiring rockstar developers to take over. Each time there were problems and the big-boss (who pretty much lives on a yacht somewhere else) comes in and puts him back in charge to fix whatever went wrong.
Having him train up minions to take over is their current plan and it's in the works. The code base is, let's say... messy... and he's the only one who knows how to handle it.
He'd work elsewhere, but he'd have to move to command that sort of salary and family issues are keeping him local. Odd guy. Brilliant in his field. Turns out that when you know your un-fireable, you show up to work when you feel like it.
I define Brilliant Jerks as specialized, high-producing performers.
"Jerk"? This is one of the many, many, reasons that technical geeks hate business people.
I have listened to Brilliant Jerks proclaim, “I am the one who is always on call, who drives the most revenue, who is here on weekends and who has the knowledge.” And the Brilliant Jerk speaks the truth. But I have also seen him stick his head in the door and deflate an entire management team. A growth company needs enablers, not disablers.
Whoa there. Whoa. So... the guy that does the work and who knows where the big problems are, like the code is a horrible mess of spaghetti, shouldn't tell anyone what those problems are because.... it'll make the managers sad?
Really?
So what’s the right answer? Get rid of the Brilliant Jerk as fast as you possibly can.
Hey guys, there's like, one single engineer who knows how all off this stuff works. He said this thing at my last meeting? Really got me down. Let's get rid of him. We're a growing company, I'm sure those highschool grads we hired and a couple entry level engineers who handled their own section before will be up to the task. I mean, it's not like the entire code-base was a one-man spaghetti-code mess right?
The wonderful thing about them is that they'll take the sting out of long commutes.
Imagine what those thosands of engineers will do with their gained hour of productivity? ...Mostly angry birds or equivlent. But in addition to everyone being a little happier with their bleak existence when they show up to work or at home, some will actually do meaningful work instead today's defacto STARE AT ROAD.
Well, I dunno if this was clear or not in the example. But when I walk over to the the guy with my desk-pounding-fist and tell him that respect works two ways, and ask him if he respects me as a human, the implication there is that I'll punch him if he doesn't respect me as a human. You know, reciprocally, I don't respect him as a human so he's available for a pounding. I'm not looking for an international treaty as dictated by the UN. I just need some shmuck to understand that there's some basic level of respect that everyone is due.
Otherwise, start here. You, uh, need to tone down the cynical dial a little. (oh, and that muslim hatred thing)
Ah yes, all those boat-owners who bought an economical ELECTRIC CAR who dreamed they'd be able to haul it around with said electric car. Let us take a moment to weep for them. But maybe it's ok because they're saved from terrible handling and difficult driving. (You know, if driving is "dangerously lethal", maybe cars in general just aren't for you.)
Slashdot Mirror
your router, your connection, your responsibility.
...
If you leave your wifi open, you do not suddenly become a common carrier yourself.
What about a cafe with free wifi? I don't know.
Whoa! Whoa there.
What kind of double-standard bullshit is this? A business offers free wifi and you "just don't know"? But if an individual offers free wifi, then it's all liability, responsibility, and child porn?
I understand the argument that the owner of a connection should be liable for that connection. I don't particularly agree. But this sort of double-standard where the masses get the full brunt of the law shoved down their throat but somehow when you tack on "LLC" to the defendant then there's a perfectly understandable grey area of plausible deniability and understandable limitations... It just kinda pisses me off, you know? If you're going to have bullshit rules you could at least apply them to everybody.
Little did Mr and Mrs smith realize, but as the amount of consumer buying power of the median household increases, so too does the cost of various consumer products, due to the intrinsic nature of the lw of supply and demand.
Here we see a simple graph, depicting the willingness to spend, intersecting the willingness of a merchant to sell.
As you can clearly see, that as Mr and Mrs smith's financial fortunes improve, their willingness to spend extra on products they routinely buy increases. The natural market reaction to this event, is the inevitable adjusted price offered by merchants.
I'm not entirely sold on this part here.
Sure, everyone has more money. That's essentially inflation. Demand for... everything... increases and prices go up.
But since everyone is working more, there's literally more supply. The abstracted merchant is selling things that are made by people working. Increased supply should lower prices.
As the median income increases, it's not necessarily the cost of goods that would go up. It could be the volume. If I have an extra $5 bucks every week, I'd buy an extra beer, and the bar tender, trucker, brewer, farmer would profit that much more. I don't see any market force that would cause them to charge more because business is good. Now, I could see that if there's a bunch of poor slobs who suddenly get rich, that their tastes might change. Instead of living on mac'n'cheese and water, they'd buy steak and beer. The price MOST CERTAINLY goes up with that. But that's an entirely different effect than what you're describing here. If people wanted to live on one paycheck and eat mac'n'cheese, they could still do that. Maybe you could argue about efficiencies of scale and how a society is optimized towards a particular class, but that's not the same thing as merchants charging more because their clientele has more cash on hand.
I find your views of economics to be cynical and overly pessimistic. Your assumptions have introduced flaws into your argument.
But... yeah, I'd agree that women gaining rights and getting jobs has undermined the amount of effort we put into raising kids. I'd say it's time for fathers to help hold the baby.
Where is it written that cyber criminals can steal our identities...
It isn't..... that's illegal. If we catch you doing that you go to jail. But it's kinda hard to catch people doing that. It's called criminal enterprise. We will not allow corporations to openly be criminal enterprises. The rule of law persists, and if you break the law we will break you.
Great, and once they can run Dwarf fortress, Photoshop, Valgrind, Audacity, TrueCrypt, and display full video at a reasonable speed then it will be a valid replacement. I'll also need the ability to store all my stuff, run whatever programs I want, display to multiple screens, connect to some quality speakers (which could be over the HDMI if anyone would freaking MAKE them).
I was going to chuck in battery requirements, but I'm ok with it living on grid-power while docked, which is where it runs the heavy programs and sucks the most juice.
But yeah, props to the Android for doing what others cannot.
Yeah yeah, we've all heard about Doctrow's rant about the upcoming war. I think it's a little over the top.
But this article and discussion is actually about the form factor and not about who has the rights to execute what code.
While, yeah, keyboard/video/mouse is the age-old classic and simply the best interface we have right now. And you sit at a desk for this.
But I want something I can carry around to different desks. Something hand-held with a simple interface while on the go, BUT CAN ALSO interface to that k/v/m combo at a desk. And that thing would not be considered a "desktop PC".
(And replacing the KVM/IO configuration is the realm of direct neural interfaces that tap right into your brain, which is more sci-fi than fact right now.)
Well, you MIGHT be able to use a dragon to take out a dragon, but it's not exactly built for it. I'd use a stinger.
No, I'm trying to say that the "carrying capacity" of Wyoming depends on external factors, like how much food they can buy. You could measure a place by how much of one vital resource they have, (ignoring their ability to trade one resource for another) and that would be interesting, but it wouldn't dictate whether or not Wyoming is overcrowded. If you've got tunnel vision on water and food, EVERY CITY is horribly overcrowded, while rural areas have a ludicrous abundance.
My point is that you can't selectively look at a specific region when talking about resource scarcity. Cause, you know, we trade things.
Ok, as long as I have more comfort than the next guy.
My GOD! It's like they'd have to trade some of their delicious coal (they're our number one producer) in exchange for some of this corn I've got over here in Iowa. We've got, like, tons of it. No really, we've got so much food, we feed our food food, just so our food tastes a little better. Ok, a LOT better. mmmmm Steak.
Sorry, but while chemistry is involved, it isn't even approximately the same as love.
It's a subset. The chemicals would be the building blocks. Like how the elements of a turning complete language (if, loop, set) are the building blocks that compose the most advance artificial intelligence system. So AI is a subset of software. Likewise love is a subset of chemistry.
There's all sorts of subjects that are tied into software that pertain to AI, like documentation, feedback loops, unit testing, etc. And there are all sorts of subjects that are tied into chemistry that pertain to love: biology, neuroscience, sociology, porn.
So rather than saying computation requires an abacus, you should be saying computation requires math. Which it does.
If I were to say that love is nothing but a bunch of chemicals bumping around, it would be perfectly true.
The economy is nothing but a bunch of wealth shuffling about.
AI programs are nothing but a bunch of bits being flipped.
This view is pertinent here because the woo-woo crowd is trying to claim that there's some mystical magical additional force/quality/aspect to it which is beyond our ken. There is not. It really does boil down to something that simple.
Usually if you have a publisher, it's no longer YOUR works. It's theirs.
It's kind of a crock.
Then let's try again and being more open ended.
Why do you think you're consistently "modded into oblivion"?
Oh, that's because the DHS is full of shit and probably needs to be disbanded. They're stretching to find some way to justify their existence and they're seeing boogymen where there simply aren't. Or they're broadening the definition of "terrorism" to include anyone who comes off as crazy on the Internet (hoo boy, they're gonna be busy). In their defense, take roman_mir as an example: his rantings are similar to rants of other extremists and he's implying he wants to get rid of the "established powers". But terrorism? Naw. Voting for a guy that would tear down the entire system simply isn't terrorism. Even though the end result is the same, the fact that it's happening from within the system makes it legit.
No, no, roman_mir, while crazy, has a really good point. However, I was trying to address why he's routinely modded into oblivion. Even though he has a good point, he picks it up and carries it all the way to crazy town. He extrapolates his point out to places where it's comical. So far that it makes people doubt his original point and makes it hard for the rest of us to stand next to the crazy guy and argue that he's (partially) right.
While there may be a bell curve to intelligence, education CAN affect where that average lies. Now, there are natural geniuses out in desert that would have been math majors had they had any schooling, and given a chance they can pick up new things later on. And there are those who, despite a massive amount of effort from everyone involved, never quite grasp calculus. But on a society level, education makes more knowledge workers.
And intelligence means almost jack shit when it comes to owning. You seem to be making a few assumptions connecting owning a business, MBAs, and intelligence. Is "social intelligence" or your ability to shmooze really on the same scale?
in 2012, you can locate a factory anywhere
All the secretaries and paper routers lost their jobs in the late 80s/early 90s automation
And these are good things. This is progress. Imagine a world where we make robots do all the work. This could be a paradise. It's probably going to be a bumpy ride getting there. Exactly like there was some contention over where the extra money goes when the factory owners bought industrial tools in the industrial revolution, there will be a question over who gets what when we automate all the work away. But don't let that distract you. Progress is a good thing. It literally makes the products more affordable for everyone. It used to be that when you bought a car, some fraction of that cash had to go to pay for the boss's secretary. No more secretary means that car is that much more affordable. And, hopefully competiton or some other system means the customer reaps some of that efficiency.
[Manufacturing returns] And I hope it can be something that someone can build an entire career on
I just don't see that happening in the long run.
And that still leaves us with the original problem doesn't it?
Personally, I likewise see a division of work in the future. I think/hope it's going to break down like this:
Smart people. STEM jobs. Geeks. Like you said, the intelligent crowd. Everyone needs to be at least a little smart to be functional in society, like the ability to read, but it'll be the focus of these people.
Social people. Like, where they talk to each other and stuff. Polititians, managers, figureheads, correspondants, and yeah even walmart greeters. Anyone that interacts mainly with other peole. Everyone needs to be at least a little social to be functional in society, like the ability to converse with others, but it'll be the focus of these people.
Artsy people. The creative types. Yeah, that's right, I want my utopia to have murals'n'shit instead of featureless concrete. Unless you're into that. Does everyone need to be a little arsty? I dunno. I think someone with a zero value would be a psychology case study though.
Those are the big three ways people make their living. A lot of jobs will be a mix of more than one talent. Hopefully that'll span the majority of society. I don't think there's any upper limit to the amount of effort any of those three could absorb. Sure, the world only needs X amount of sprockets a year. But research? Art? PolitiuuuuhhI'll get back to you on that last one. But there are alternatives:
Menial labor. Sure, eventually robots could take everything, but for a really REALLY long time there's going to be random pidly stuff that anyone could do. Picking up garbage. Washing dogs. Being that person who screems "theif" if you steal shit, but ostensibly is there to "ring you up". There will be some jobs for people who can't do anything else.
The safety net. Hey man, we're approaching a post-scarcity society. Food and shelter can be had for dirt cheap if you're willing to live in that style. And as a
No one's made the joke about planets aligning in an xyzzy pattern will instantly teleport us here?
Feeling old.
Daily briefings. What? The chief of police can't talk to the governor?
Is the boss of the state troopers barred from interacting with officials?
Also, neither I nor Google know what you mean by NIO. Let's guess at: National Intelligence Officer. Is this a mystical role that the police department just can't fill?
I am talking about NIOs that come in and brief the president daily over security threatrs and related issues. This is a role that fusion centers provide to state governments.
Also, if governors need to be briefed daily about "security theatrs", then we have a NATIONAL PROBLEM. If the problem is localized to that one state, then we still have a NATIONAL PROBLEM which is THAT STATE. Immigration problems being cracked down in Arizona will just shift to new mexico. A gang boss in Illinois being hounded by a governor (via his fusion center) will spend a weekend in Ohio and now the governor can't do jack shit. Unless, of course, you want the Utah special forces raiding homes in Vermont for... whatever the governor and congress of Utah feel like.
If this is some sort of argument for state rights, you're making a bad argument.
Fusion centers do not collect intelligence, they simply pass it along and analyze it.
"Pass it along" could be as simple as a form and a database. If they're analysts, then call them a crime lab. If they actually connect dots and find the bad guys, call them detectives. If you want them to work with the governor, call them an aide or a secretary.
But if you want a group of people that do the "intelligence" thing for "drug, organized crime, etc situations", we have plenty of organizations that already do that. If there's a problem with them stepping on each other's feet, Axe one. Repeat as necessary.
DHS treats Ron Paul supporters as 'terrorists'. Apparently at the minimum 15% of population of USA are on this terrorist list
Not crazy. These are good things to point out setting up your argument. The failings of DHS and Ron Paul are even on topic.
Also note that Republicans and Democrats always are very capable of 'putting their differences aside' when attacking a third party candidate,
Still on topic. And it's true. The two-party system is pretty busted and it protects the two-party system.
Is it because Ron Paul wouldn't go to war with Iran [youtube.com]?
Whoa there. That's kinda crazy. It's even said in that "I'm not going to say it, but leave it as a question" sort of way that Glenn Beck uses. At least you didn't end with "No, I don't think so. But it makes you think, doesn't it?".
Is it because Ron Paul is against the federal government telling people how to live their lives [youtube.com]? Some will say that leaving things up to States is wrong, they are missing the bigger point, that leaving things like that to federal government is completely wrong and unconstitutional. As to allowing people to deal with these issues on State level does not mean that the State should in fact interfere with people either! At the minimum there should be competition among States for residents.
Not that crazy. Ideally, sure, that'd be great. The insinuation that supporting state's rights paints Ron Paul as a terrorist is a little crazy though.
The Fed is the actual main tool of destruction of US economy with its inflationary policy.
Crazy. (and you've gone off topic). It's a tool that keeps the rich bankers rich, for sure, and it's got some shady dealings. But "the main tool" destroying the US economy? Please. That's just overboard. The Fed is indeed aware that too much inflation is bad and they try to have just as much as they can get away with. When it suits them. It's.... arguably a viable strategy. Arguably. But anyway, this sort of over the top accusation is exactly what makes you come off as bat-shit crazy. It's the tunnel vision where everything starts to tie back the one thing you don't like.
Savings eaten by inflation? Damn the fed!
Lost your job due to recession? Damn the fed!
Burnt your toast this morning? Damn the fed!
Can you spot the point where blaming the fed makes you look crazy? Can you spot the point where the fed is only partially responsible?
Gary Johnson...
Interesting. And this supports your argument that the two parties defends the two-party system. Good stuff
Why do you think it is that the 'debate' that may take place only includes the candidates from the 2 parties? Because it's 1 party
Pretty typical sentiment from the third-party lot. Not too crazy. Cynical, sure, but understandable.
and because the media is captured by the system.
Veering into crazy.
There is no freedom of press, there is no independent media, there is only a propaganda machine
We've entered crazy town.
it's meant to do one thing: keep the establishment in power.
And they'll continue to be in power as long as the alternative comes off as a mouth-foaming pitbull in a tin-foil cap.
Listen kiddo, here's the thing. You're more right than you are wrong. Is the two-party system broken? Yes. Is the Fed full of crooks? Yeah, probably. But the ways in which you are wrong are just SOOOOOOOO wrong that you're never going to get any traction. Politics is the art of getting people to agree with you. And you suck at it.
they provide for state governments what the CIA does for the White House
And do you think that's a good thing? Are you familiar with what the CIA does? And you want that power given over the STATE authorities?
Are you sure you didn't mean FBI? Because they're at least able to work within our national borders. And state officials have that. We call them cops.
You sir, have delivered a sliver of calm rationalization into a festering pit of rage. As much as I hate any sort of justification for statements and ideas presented in the article, you have a point.
The only limitation I would say is that "value" (which I assume means ability to earn revenue) does not translate to into ability/right to steer company. "Where the entire group wants to go" is actually a decision for the CEO/owners regardless of their "value". The example in the article, I think, would be the exception to the rule. A group of doctors coming together usually form a partnership of sorts where the workers are also the owners and decision makers. (Do... what do they call it? "Practices" have their own MBA-type they employ?) But for slashdot, we have engineers and businessmen. And steering the company is specifically a businessman's job. Same goes for most companies.
I have a friend in situation #2. I'm not sure it's exactly tied to shares, but he commands the biggest salary in the company. They tried firing him, twice. Putting a manager over him. Hiring rockstar developers to take over. Each time there were problems and the big-boss (who pretty much lives on a yacht somewhere else) comes in and puts him back in charge to fix whatever went wrong.
Having him train up minions to take over is their current plan and it's in the works. The code base is, let's say... messy... and he's the only one who knows how to handle it.
He'd work elsewhere, but he'd have to move to command that sort of salary and family issues are keeping him local. Odd guy. Brilliant in his field. Turns out that when you know your un-fireable, you show up to work when you feel like it.
I define Brilliant Jerks as specialized, high-producing performers.
"Jerk"? This is one of the many, many, reasons that technical geeks hate business people.
I have listened to Brilliant Jerks proclaim, “I am the one who is always on call, who drives the most revenue, who is here on weekends and who has the knowledge.” And the Brilliant Jerk speaks the truth. But I have also seen him stick his head in the door and deflate an entire management team. A growth company needs enablers, not disablers.
Whoa there. Whoa. So... the guy that does the work and who knows where the big problems are, like the code is a horrible mess of spaghetti, shouldn't tell anyone what those problems are because.... it'll make the managers sad?
Really?
So what’s the right answer? Get rid of the Brilliant Jerk as fast as you possibly can.
Hey guys, there's like, one single engineer who knows how all off this stuff works. He said this thing at my last meeting? Really got me down. Let's get rid of him. We're a growing company, I'm sure those highschool grads we hired and a couple entry level engineers who handled their own section before will be up to the task. I mean, it's not like the entire code-base was a one-man spaghetti-code mess right?
The wonderful thing about them is that they'll take the sting out of long commutes.
...Mostly angry birds or equivlent. But in addition to everyone being a little happier with their bleak existence when they show up to work or at home, some will actually do meaningful work instead today's defacto STARE AT ROAD.
Imagine what those thosands of engineers will do with their gained hour of productivity?
the emergence of a 'digital Blackwater,' or the emergence of firms that could be hired to go all mercenary on online intruders.
I've played that Shadowrun module.
Well, I dunno if this was clear or not in the example. But when I walk over to the the guy with my desk-pounding-fist and tell him that respect works two ways, and ask him if he respects me as a human, the implication there is that I'll punch him if he doesn't respect me as a human. You know, reciprocally, I don't respect him as a human so he's available for a pounding. I'm not looking for an international treaty as dictated by the UN. I just need some shmuck to understand that there's some basic level of respect that everyone is due.
Otherwise, start here. You, uh, need to tone down the cynical dial a little. (oh, and that muslim hatred thing)
Ah yes, all those boat-owners who bought an economical ELECTRIC CAR who dreamed they'd be able to haul it around with said electric car. Let us take a moment to weep for them. But maybe it's ok because they're saved from terrible handling and difficult driving.
(You know, if driving is "dangerously lethal", maybe cars in general just aren't for you.)