Oh don't be rediculous. How can anyone think that just giving people free money is going to solve anything in the long run? How about this: How about we educate people and train them for new jobs in this changing world, instead of encouraging them to sit around and do nothing? Or are we really reaching the point where human lives are so cheap that nobody cares if they're wasted? We Humans are supposedly at the very top of the food chain, allegedly these magnificently evolved creatures with self-aware, creative, thinking, tool-building-and-using brains, yet we're going to just let entire populations sit idle? Go watch a movie called Idiocracy and see if you still think this 'UBI' is such a great idea.
Hear, hear. Microsoft has it's fingers in way too many pies now, and is doing whatever they damned well please, and they DGAF. I think it's time for Microsoft to be broken up into many smaller independent companies.
Oh, there ain't no rest for the wicked Money don't grow on trees I got bills to pay I got mouths to feed And ain't nothing in this world for free No I can't slow down I can't hold back Though you know I wish I could No there ain't no rest for the wicked Until we close our eyes for good
Also,
Magic always comes with a price, dearies
Sure, this sounds wonderful, doesn't it? Who wouldn't like to just quit their job and live their life however they can afford on money they get 'for free' from the government, or at least have extra all the time that they know they don't have to work for? But come on, people, you know it's never going to be that easy. The money has to come from somewhere, and that 'somewhere' is taxpayers. The Affordable Care Act (aka 'Obamacare') sounded wonderful to me, too -- for the first 30 seconds or so, until I came full-stop internally and thought "..hey, who's paying for all this?". Turns out it's ***ME*** who's paying for it, in having health insurance shoved down my throat, whether I wanted/needed it or not, or be increasingly penalized every year on my Federal taxes for not buying it. All so many lazy people who didn't take care of themselves can get expensive healthcare. So it would go with this 'Universal Basic Income': layabouts will welcome it, and the working people will pay increasingly higher taxes to pay for lazy-asses to sit on their butts and play all day. Then, of course, 'Magic always comes with a price': The rich will, naturally, find some way out of paying their fair share for this magical boon, and so will corporations, placing the entire burden of it squarely on the shoulders of the working class, who, ironically enough, would be the people most likely to benefit from it. Next you'll say 'the government will pay for it by cancelling X, Y, and Z social welfare programs', but come on, you know that's never going to happen! There is enough of a socialist movement in this country that they'll find enough plausible reasons why X, Y, and Z social programs need to be continued. So they'll just tax people more. And the rich and corporations will continue to say nope, nope, nope! to the taxation, and leave the working class holding the bag, again. Finally, some of you are saying, 'oh, but people naturally want to work, it's in our DNA, so most people will continue to work anyway'. That's also a bunch of nonsense; people are naturally lazy (except for some, of course), and given the opportunity they'll be lazy and unproductive, so long as they have a roof over their heads, enough to eat, and sex. Furthermore, over the last few decades I see people getting lazier and lazier, less willing to learn to do things (or learn at all), and the bar overall being lowered rather than raised, as we have more and more technology to do things for us, remember things for us, and generally move humans towards obsolescence. Even TFA talks about 'unemployment due to AI and robotics taking people's jobs' being the reason we need this UBI in the first place. We already have a segment of the population that doesn't have any work ethic whatsoever, because they come from (literally!) generations that lived their entire lives on the welfare dole; having a job is a completely foreign concept to them. This 'Univeral Basic Income' will create entire populations of people who don't work, will never work, and who will look at you like you're speaking a foreign language when you tell them their lives could actually be better if they had a job and earned money. They'll have no incentive of any kind to improve their lives, seek higher learning, learn skills, or anything else, because they're fed, clothed, and housed by the State. If Universal Basic Income becomes a real threat here in the United States, and it comes down to a public vote, I would vote a resounding NO! on it, and urge everyone around me to do the same. It's a bad idea not only for countries, but for the Human Race in general.
I was wondering something in a similar vein: How about pirates? What is there, if anything, about this robotic ship, that would prevent someone from boarding it and commandeering it?
Doubt anyone will see this comment, there being almost 300 comments at this moment, but regardless..
What I see is a trend towards more automation, machines doing more and more for us, allegedly 'liberating' us from 'menial tasks', but in reality people are being challenged less and less with every passing decade to actually learn to do things for themselves, and it's making their brains lazier and lazier, less willing or even able to learn new things. 'Use it or lose it' is a real thing.
Never mind all that, when do we get actual hoverboards (not those fire hazards on wheels we keep seeing in the news)? And Kzinti-style gravity polarizers to replace chemical rockets? And Lift Belts so I can just fly to work above the treetops and skip all the traffic? Don't tell me "it's five years away", we all know what THAT means!
Sure. We can let you have some control. All liability falls on you whenever you take control of part of the driving.
Not a problem, just like it hasnt' been a problem for the last 35 years I've been driving, during which by the way there has been exactly ONE accident I was even remotely responsible for, and even then there were mitigating factors involved that influenced the outcome.
I assume it will only work if the driver has 100 percent or the AI has 100 percent. Yes you can have your controls. But its either you or the AI not a mix.
I'm guessing you don't design systems of any kind for a living. Yes, of course, it couldn't work any other way -- with the exception, perhaps, of the 'emergency braking systems' I've been hearing about on some new cars. But that's just braking, not navigating. Otherwise to have two different systems (one silicon, the other carbon-based) fighting for control constantly? Would never work. Has to be 'autopilot ON' or 'autopilot OFF', nothign in between.
Google "expresses concern that providing human occupants of the vehicle with mechanisms to control things like steering, acceleration, braking... could be detrimental to safety because the human occupants could attempt to override the (self-driving system's) decisions," the NHTSA letter stated.
Bullshit. Vehicles must have a full set of manual controls available to the human operator at all times, and furhermore they must be fully educated, trained, licensed, and insured, just like always. To do otherwise is what will put people's lives at risk. Google is smoking crack and needs to be put in their place.
1. That's positively terrifying. I think I'll stick to small pickups with manual transmission. 2. I know how to use a parking/emergency brake; I've even tested them for that purpose, and so far as I'm concerned it would be the absolute last-ditch final half-assed fail-safe system, right before flinging the drivers side door open and bailing out before hitting the concrete abutment or whatever doom I might be headed for -- and no, I've never had to do either of the above. But I'm just smart enough to at least consider what I might have to do when Everything Else Has Gone Terribly Horribly Wrong. Even in a lightweight vehicle and pulling slowly and progressively on the lever (or pressing down on the pedal), the parking brake does a terribly poor job of slowing a vehicle down, because it's just the drum brakes in the back (haven't owned anything new enough to have disc in the back) and they're terribly weak, especially when mechanically actuated. But if it came to the hydraulics failing I'd damned well try it. At least it would shed some velocity before impact. 3. I don't think I'd ever own a vehicle that didn't have a mechanical linkage between the steering wheel and the rack-and-pinion, and the (normal) brake pedal and the master cylinder. It's supposed to be a real motor vehicle, not an arcade game.:-)
Did you notice? Lots of utter dummies in this comment thread I started, who can't seem to even consider What Might Go Wrong and that that's why some things are designed the way they're designed. It boggles me how some people can get through life in one piece.
I see. So if there's some catastrophic failure of the computerized control systems of the vehicle, you can't even yank hard on a lever or push as hard as you can down on a pedal to engage a mechanical emergency brake? Is there even a direct mechanical connection between the regular brake pedal and the brake master cylinder?
Yep, boycotting them too, but for different reasons. Don't know (or care) if they're sharing all that data with the government or not, just boycotting them because they're a bunch of dicks.
Will the industry relent and allow Government access to data from these devices?
If they or any company does, then they should be boycotted until they go bankrupt. It'll never end. Even if the government got access to every single device immediately, it would never be enough for them. Next they'd be pushing for being above any basic civil or human rights, and be able to use at will any torture techniques they felt like to pry 'secrets' out of peoples' brains, too. Ironically no one would ever be safe ever again, more fearful of the people who were once supposed to protect them than they ever were of so-called 'terrorists'. It has to stop, it has to stop NOW.
It's not just a bad idea, it's not an enforceable system. What's the difference between trolling and arguing, or trolling and someone whose honest opinion just happens to deviate beyond a certain distance from what's considered the norm? It's like trying to set down rules as to what is and is not 'art'; it can't be done.
How about ZERO inefficiency by just plugging your damn car in? People have been pumping their own gas for decades now, and that's considerably more difficult and dangerous than plugging in a simple cable.
There is no 'and'. That's all YOUR opinion of MY opinion, I don't agree with you, you're not changing my mind, that's the end of that -- and if you don't like it, then as per my sigline, that's tough luck for you. It's not like anything anyone says on Slashdot is going to change anything anywhere in the world for anyone anyway, it's all just talk.
So let me get this straight: We're living in a world that is increasingly demanding more and more power, production isn't meeting the demand, we need to get away from coal-fired plants, everyone is too much of a scared caveman to have nuclear power of any kind anymore (not even LFTR), everything and everyone is constantly under pressure to conserve power, yet we're going to throw away all sorts of power as useless heat (which the world does not need!) just to solve your first-world convenience problems? Really? Seriously?
This is stupid. Plug in your gods-be-damned car to recharge it, it's not that hard!
Washer, dryer, dishwasher, refrigerator, thermostat, lightbulbs? Toasters, stove, oven, even? Toilets, for fucks' sake? There isn't a single valid reason so far as it concerns me specifically for them to be connected to the gods-be-damned Internet. It's just more expense, more complexity, more things that can go wrong or break. It's all solutions-in-search-of-a-problem; it's marketing people that overheard someone talking about connecting something novel to the Internet, and like retarded marketing people tend to do, they went nuts with it. Enough, already!
The Internet is a gigantic network devised for the sole purpose of transporting data between computers. Obviously that can be used to violate copyright laws anywhere in the world, so why not just cut to the chase and call the whole thing illegal? Once they accomplish that, then they can move on to USB flash drives and external hard drives, writeable CDs, DVDs, and Bluray discs, and then finally HDDs and SSDs, and any non-volatile semiconductor memory, since all of it can be used to copy and transport copyrighted data. In their perfect world all computers would run off EPROMs, no file storage capability, and any and all media would be streaming only. Give them enough time and they'd find a way to edit people's wetware memory so they wouldn't be allowed to learn anything copyrighted or remember copyrighted images or sounds.
All hyperbole and kidding aside, is it just me or do these BREIN fools sound like just more politicians, completely devoid of any ability to understand technical things? Their argument is like liberals trying to outlaw firearms: they make a basic assumption that 'guns are evil, therefore get rid of guns' when in reality people kill people, and eliminating guns won't really do a damn thing; someone wants to kill, they'll find a way, gun or no gun. Bittorrent has many legitimate uses. Deeming any bittorrent client 'illegal' is asinine, you'd have to deem all bittorrent clients illegal, and the entire protocol illegal, too. At that point you may as well call FTP illegal, or any chat client that allows file transfer illegal, or make file attachments to email illegal. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Never mind the fact that filesharing is never, ever going to go away, either; they're fighting a losing battle.
All very interesting analyses and information.. but of course the price-point for any of these SSDs throws the whole question out the window anyway, they cost more than the DVR cost when it was new, and the 1TB Western Digital drive I just put in it cost less than $100. Just not cost effective to use an SSD.
That's more what I was suspecting, actually, but above you are comments from others who are 180 degrees out from what you're saying. Of course this is just an academic discussion, I just put a brand-new 1TB HDD in my DVR, it'll be years before it becomes an issue again.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh don't be rediculous. How can anyone think that just giving people free money is going to solve anything in the long run? How about this: How about we educate people and train them for new jobs in this changing world, instead of encouraging them to sit around and do nothing? Or are we really reaching the point where human lives are so cheap that nobody cares if they're wasted? We Humans are supposedly at the very top of the food chain, allegedly these magnificently evolved creatures with self-aware, creative, thinking, tool-building-and-using brains, yet we're going to just let entire populations sit idle? Go watch a movie called Idiocracy and see if you still think this 'UBI' is such a great idea.
It'll be a disaster, first for the countries that implement it, then for the Human Race in general.
Hear, hear. Microsoft has it's fingers in way too many pies now, and is doing whatever they damned well please, and they DGAF. I think it's time for Microsoft to be broken up into many smaller independent companies.
Hear, hear!
Oh, there ain't no rest for the wicked
Money don't grow on trees
I got bills to pay
I got mouths to feed
And ain't nothing in this world for free
No I can't slow down
I can't hold back
Though you know I wish I could
No there ain't no rest for the wicked
Until we close our eyes for good
Also,
Magic always comes with a price, dearies
Sure, this sounds wonderful, doesn't it? Who wouldn't like to just quit their job and live their life however they can afford on money they get 'for free' from the government, or at least have extra all the time that they know they don't have to work for? But come on, people, you know it's never going to be that easy. The money has to come from somewhere, and that 'somewhere' is taxpayers. The Affordable Care Act (aka 'Obamacare') sounded wonderful to me, too -- for the first 30 seconds or so, until I came full-stop internally and thought "..hey, who's paying for all this?". Turns out it's ***ME*** who's paying for it, in having health insurance shoved down my throat, whether I wanted/needed it or not, or be increasingly penalized every year on my Federal taxes for not buying it. All so many lazy people who didn't take care of themselves can get expensive healthcare. So it would go with this 'Universal Basic Income': layabouts will welcome it, and the working people will pay increasingly higher taxes to pay for lazy-asses to sit on their butts and play all day. Then, of course, 'Magic always comes with a price': The rich will, naturally, find some way out of paying their fair share for this magical boon, and so will corporations, placing the entire burden of it squarely on the shoulders of the working class, who, ironically enough, would be the people most likely to benefit from it. Next you'll say 'the government will pay for it by cancelling X, Y, and Z social welfare programs', but come on, you know that's never going to happen! There is enough of a socialist movement in this country that they'll find enough plausible reasons why X, Y, and Z social programs need to be continued. So they'll just tax people more. And the rich and corporations will continue to say nope, nope, nope! to the taxation, and leave the working class holding the bag, again. Finally, some of you are saying, 'oh, but people naturally want to work, it's in our DNA, so most people will continue to work anyway'. That's also a bunch of nonsense; people are naturally lazy (except for some, of course), and given the opportunity they'll be lazy and unproductive, so long as they have a roof over their heads, enough to eat, and sex. Furthermore, over the last few decades I see people getting lazier and lazier, less willing to learn to do things (or learn at all), and the bar overall being lowered rather than raised, as we have more and more technology to do things for us, remember things for us, and generally move humans towards obsolescence. Even TFA talks about 'unemployment due to AI and robotics taking people's jobs' being the reason we need this UBI in the first place. We already have a segment of the population that doesn't have any work ethic whatsoever, because they come from (literally!) generations that lived their entire lives on the welfare dole; having a job is a completely foreign concept to them. This 'Univeral Basic Income' will create entire populations of people who don't work, will never work, and who will look at you like you're speaking a foreign language when you tell them their lives could actually be better if they had a job and earned money. They'll have no incentive of any kind to improve their lives, seek higher learning, learn skills, or anything else, because they're fed, clothed, and housed by the State. If Universal Basic Income becomes a real threat here in the United States, and it comes down to a public vote, I would vote a resounding NO! on it, and urge everyone around me to do the same. It's a bad idea not only for countries, but for the Human Race in general.
I seriously doubt anyone would be so stupid as to build a vessel like that with zero manual controls, you're inviting disaster if you do.
I was wondering something in a similar vein: How about pirates? What is there, if anything, about this robotic ship, that would prevent someone from boarding it and commandeering it?
Doubt anyone will see this comment, there being almost 300 comments at this moment, but regardless..
What I see is a trend towards more automation, machines doing more and more for us, allegedly 'liberating' us from 'menial tasks', but in reality people are being challenged less and less with every passing decade to actually learn to do things for themselves, and it's making their brains lazier and lazier, less willing or even able to learn new things. 'Use it or lose it' is a real thing.
Claims to hate the West and everything it stands for
Sure likes all our stuff though
Never mind all that, when do we get actual hoverboards (not those fire hazards on wheels we keep seeing in the news)? And Kzinti-style gravity polarizers to replace chemical rockets? And Lift Belts so I can just fly to work above the treetops and skip all the traffic? Don't tell me "it's five years away", we all know what THAT means!
Sure. We can let you have some control. All liability falls on you whenever you take control of part of the driving.
Not a problem, just like it hasnt' been a problem for the last 35 years I've been driving, during which by the way there has been exactly ONE accident I was even remotely responsible for, and even then there were mitigating factors involved that influenced the outcome.
I assume it will only work if the driver has 100 percent or the AI has 100 percent. Yes you can have your controls. But its either you or the AI not a mix.
I'm guessing you don't design systems of any kind for a living. Yes, of course, it couldn't work any other way -- with the exception, perhaps, of the 'emergency braking systems' I've been hearing about on some new cars. But that's just braking, not navigating. Otherwise to have two different systems (one silicon, the other carbon-based) fighting for control constantly? Would never work. Has to be 'autopilot ON' or 'autopilot OFF', nothign in between.
Google "expresses concern that providing human occupants of the vehicle with mechanisms to control things like steering, acceleration, braking... could be detrimental to safety because the human occupants could attempt to override the (self-driving system's) decisions," the NHTSA letter stated.
Bullshit. Vehicles must have a full set of manual controls available to the human operator at all times, and furhermore they must be fully educated, trained, licensed, and insured, just like always. To do otherwise is what will put people's lives at risk. Google is smoking crack and needs to be put in their place.
1. That's positively terrifying. I think I'll stick to small pickups with manual transmission. :-)
2. I know how to use a parking/emergency brake; I've even tested them for that purpose, and so far as I'm concerned it would be the absolute last-ditch final half-assed fail-safe system, right before flinging the drivers side door open and bailing out before hitting the concrete abutment or whatever doom I might be headed for -- and no, I've never had to do either of the above. But I'm just smart enough to at least consider what I might have to do when Everything Else Has Gone Terribly Horribly Wrong. Even in a lightweight vehicle and pulling slowly and progressively on the lever (or pressing down on the pedal), the parking brake does a terribly poor job of slowing a vehicle down, because it's just the drum brakes in the back (haven't owned anything new enough to have disc in the back) and they're terribly weak, especially when mechanically actuated. But if it came to the hydraulics failing I'd damned well try it. At least it would shed some velocity before impact.
3. I don't think I'd ever own a vehicle that didn't have a mechanical linkage between the steering wheel and the rack-and-pinion, and the (normal) brake pedal and the master cylinder. It's supposed to be a real motor vehicle, not an arcade game.
Did you notice? Lots of utter dummies in this comment thread I started, who can't seem to even consider What Might Go Wrong and that that's why some things are designed the way they're designed. It boggles me how some people can get through life in one piece.
I see. So if there's some catastrophic failure of the computerized control systems of the vehicle, you can't even yank hard on a lever or push as hard as you can down on a pedal to engage a mechanical emergency brake? Is there even a direct mechanical connection between the regular brake pedal and the brake master cylinder?
Yep, boycotting them too, but for different reasons. Don't know (or care) if they're sharing all that data with the government or not, just boycotting them because they're a bunch of dicks.
Will the industry relent and allow Government access to data from these devices?
If they or any company does, then they should be boycotted until they go bankrupt. It'll never end. Even if the government got access to every single device immediately, it would never be enough for them. Next they'd be pushing for being above any basic civil or human rights, and be able to use at will any torture techniques they felt like to pry 'secrets' out of peoples' brains, too. Ironically no one would ever be safe ever again, more fearful of the people who were once supposed to protect them than they ever were of so-called 'terrorists'. It has to stop, it has to stop NOW.
It's not just a bad idea, it's not an enforceable system. What's the difference between trolling and arguing, or trolling and someone whose honest opinion just happens to deviate beyond a certain distance from what's considered the norm? It's like trying to set down rules as to what is and is not 'art'; it can't be done.
How about ZERO inefficiency by just plugging your damn car in? People have been pumping their own gas for decades now, and that's considerably more difficult and dangerous than plugging in a simple cable.
There is no 'and'. That's all YOUR opinion of MY opinion, I don't agree with you, you're not changing my mind, that's the end of that -- and if you don't like it, then as per my sigline, that's tough luck for you. It's not like anything anyone says on Slashdot is going to change anything anywhere in the world for anyone anyway, it's all just talk.
So let me get this straight: We're living in a world that is increasingly demanding more and more power, production isn't meeting the demand, we need to get away from coal-fired plants, everyone is too much of a scared caveman to have nuclear power of any kind anymore (not even LFTR), everything and everyone is constantly under pressure to conserve power, yet we're going to throw away all sorts of power as useless heat (which the world does not need!) just to solve your first-world convenience problems? Really? Seriously?
This is stupid. Plug in your gods-be-damned car to recharge it, it's not that hard!
Washer, dryer, dishwasher, refrigerator, thermostat, lightbulbs? Toasters, stove, oven, even? Toilets, for fucks' sake? There isn't a single valid reason so far as it concerns me specifically for them to be connected to the gods-be-damned Internet. It's just more expense, more complexity, more things that can go wrong or break. It's all solutions-in-search-of-a-problem; it's marketing people that overheard someone talking about connecting something novel to the Internet, and like retarded marketing people tend to do, they went nuts with it. Enough, already!
..and all of that is just your opinion.
The Internet is a gigantic network devised for the sole purpose of transporting data between computers. Obviously that can be used to violate copyright laws anywhere in the world, so why not just cut to the chase and call the whole thing illegal? Once they accomplish that, then they can move on to USB flash drives and external hard drives, writeable CDs, DVDs, and Bluray discs, and then finally HDDs and SSDs, and any non-volatile semiconductor memory, since all of it can be used to copy and transport copyrighted data. In their perfect world all computers would run off EPROMs, no file storage capability, and any and all media would be streaming only. Give them enough time and they'd find a way to edit people's wetware memory so they wouldn't be allowed to learn anything copyrighted or remember copyrighted images or sounds.
All hyperbole and kidding aside, is it just me or do these BREIN fools sound like just more politicians, completely devoid of any ability to understand technical things? Their argument is like liberals trying to outlaw firearms: they make a basic assumption that 'guns are evil, therefore get rid of guns' when in reality people kill people, and eliminating guns won't really do a damn thing; someone wants to kill, they'll find a way, gun or no gun. Bittorrent has many legitimate uses. Deeming any bittorrent client 'illegal' is asinine, you'd have to deem all bittorrent clients illegal, and the entire protocol illegal, too. At that point you may as well call FTP illegal, or any chat client that allows file transfer illegal, or make file attachments to email illegal. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Never mind the fact that filesharing is never, ever going to go away, either; they're fighting a losing battle.
All very interesting analyses and information.. but of course the price-point for any of these SSDs throws the whole question out the window anyway, they cost more than the DVR cost when it was new, and the 1TB Western Digital drive I just put in it cost less than $100. Just not cost effective to use an SSD.
That's more what I was suspecting, actually, but above you are comments from others who are 180 degrees out from what you're saying. Of course this is just an academic discussion, I just put a brand-new 1TB HDD in my DVR, it'll be years before it becomes an issue again.