What so afraid of the future? Robots will eventually build robots for only raw materials cost Free robots will mean no labour price. Products will be free Mankind free to think
First you need to find a source of free energy
Will take some generations but...
Dumb people will be extinct!
Wake up
A robot revolution is no reason to think dumb people will become extinct -- when intelligence and hard work are no longer important, those qualities will be less prevalent in society.
Yes.. because all of the people that will lose their jobs to the robotic overlords will be protected... by the concept of the living wage. This is another socialist myth where people will gather an income for doing nothing.. based on taxing those that do something. This is so future-forward we already have examples of it!
You're confusing "living wage" (i.e. a wage that's high enough to live on) with basic income (basic income payments that everyone gets regardless of whether or where they work).
As more and more jobs are displaced, you can ignore unemployable people at your peril - people that are disenfranchised and feel that they are marginalized and left to die with no way to feed or shelter themselves or family have a way of taking what they want from those that have it regardless of what they need to do to get it.
Retail work is some of the most thankless, soul-flaying work there is.
It is also work that adds very little value. A checkout clerk isn't actually producing anything. A self-checkout kiosk can already do the same job, and is often better because the lines can be shorter.
A good cashier adds value to the company by upselling at the time of purchase "This shirt looks great, but did you see that we have scarves on sale? See the one I'm wearing? That blue one would go great with that shirt". I've watched it work on my wife, and it's quite effective. I don't see the same capability being effective with a checkout kiosk.
Perhaps not so effective at a grocery store or Home Depo, but automated checkout kiosks are already popular at those stores.
1.9 million active email addresses and about 1,700 names and active phone numbers.
Remember the good old days when phone books ruled the earth? *1 The intrusion! OMG -- people could actually see how to spell your full name! AND obtain your phone number! AND your actual physical address.
Back then it took real money (and actual humans) to set up a call center to try to bilk you out of your money.
Now you set up an IVR system to dial millions of numbers in the list and when you have an active lead, send that call to a live agent.
It's so cheap that they don't need to start with a list, they can just dial numbers randomly and let the computers screen for leads, but having actual names helps make a scam more believable.
You don't need more than a $10, simple, scientific calculator, it will have all the features you need. Instead of giving kids a tool that prevents them from learning the concepts, why not have them learn the concepts and provide them a simple tool to help them along the way.
When I took calculus, advanced calculus, and vector calculus, we weren't allowed to have a calculator in the classroom or exams, because once you got the equation you needed, in the right form, the answer didn't matter. This is how every child should learn math.
Even in engineering school, I don't remember actually needing my calculator for very much, besides crunching a final answer, which was a very small amount of the overall work.
So you didn't need to use a calculator except to find the actual answer? What if the question is "Plot a curve of this function", do you get out the graph paper, calculate the values at a number of points along the curve and then draw it by hand?
How is this phone app embedded into standardized testing, which I assume is done on normal computers without touchscreens? Using a calculator is clunky without a touchscreen - typing numbers using the keyboard may be easy, but clicking on other buttons (or memorizing keyboard shortcuts) sounds like it'll slow them down.
I don't think I've actually ever used a graphing calculator, but I do *require* one that uses RPN, which pretty much means HP...
On Android, I've been pretty satisfied with RealCalc as an RPN calculator (no graphing though). I used to use some HP-48 emulator, but found RealCalc easier to use on my phone. I lost my real HP-48 in a move once... it may still be packed away in a box somewhere. My venerable HP-15C was stolen from my car years ago, I've been tempted to buy a new used one, but $200+ is a lot to spend on a something I use so rarely.
Not loading down the spaceship with useless baggage is always a good idea. Hopefully Orion will continue to be unmanned.
Nah - you don't understand many (most) space junkies. With humans in space, I support defense department type funding. Your dream of no humans. I support a budget of exactly $0.00.
Sorry but for most of us, your useless baggage is our raison d'être for a space program.
Why would anyone interested in space exploration care if an initial test flight around the moon has human passengers or not? What value is there in putting actual humans on a 3 week round trip? If something does fail on the trip and kills the humans, it'll delay the project for a decade or longer.
If you have signed something in writing to that affect. If no such contract exists, and it is found that the employee is spending significant uncompensated after-hours time working for the employer, then the courts should tell everyone involved to get lost.
Maybe they should, but I don't think they would.If an employee thinks he's working too many hours, without a contract that says otherwise, the exempt employee's recourse (in almost every state of the USA) to renegotiate with the employer (higher salary, or perhaps getting permission to work on personal projects at work) or to find new employment - he doesn't get to run his personal business in his employer's office because he thinks he worked too late last night.
If the employee doesn't get paid for the OT then the time he worked at 11pm was not compensated. Therefore personal time spend during work hours should be fair because they are just reclaiming the personal time they lost.
"should be" is not the same as "would be" -- unless he's worked it out in advance with his employer, his employer can claim that anything the employee is working on is owned by the company.
While the simple answer might be that I should always be on task during work hours, I strongly doubt my bosses would like me to just abdicate when a job finishes at 11PM and needs my attention but doesn't get it until the next morning, nor do they want to pay for another person to do it (even if that were remotely possible, which it isn't). So if I'm dicking around in the middle of the day, and I'm at the office just to maintain office hours, it should be assumed that I'm simply not on company time right now.
But unless you've worked out some special arrangement your employer, it wouldn't be assumed that you're not on company time when you're in the office "working", and depending on your employment contract, your company may own whatever you're working on on their time and equipment.
In my company, when you're you put in significant after-hours work, you take time off from the office, you don't go to the office and pretend you're working.
He's and EE not a Civil or Mechanical engineer. He's got no business at all using his engineering degree to discuss things way outside the realm of his field. The state was 100% correct and should have fined him in the thousands.
Unless you're a civil rights attorney, you have no business at all using your degree (if you even have one) to discuss free speech. If it's not within your field of study, then you obviously can't know anything about it since civil rights are very technical and specialized and require years of study before you can even utter one word about the topic.
I was in a small town too, everyone know sidewalks were for pedestrians and bikes. And we went slow, we stopped, we started, we stopped again, etc. We did not ride like modern cyclists with full set of expensive gear trying to make a speed record on the way to work weaving into and out of traffic. The road was much less safe. Even in the city now, the roads are murderous, viewing is bad, speed limit for cars too high, bike lanes too small (and when they aren't the cyclists still want to be far left on the white line for some reason).
That's the thing about commuter cyclists, they have someplace to go and don't ride like wobbly kids on their first bike.
There's no reason for speed limits to be too high or bike lanes too narrow, if a city wants biking to be safer, then they can make it safer. The reason why bikes ride out of the bike lane (when it really is a bike lane and not just a shoulder that drivers *think* is a bike lane) is because cars tend to kick debris into the bike lane. A separated bike lane, even with a low curb-like separator) is much safer in the respect since most road debris won't jump the barrier.
My cousin's husband was an avid cyclist. He was hit by a school bus and killed instantly. Transit buses don't have a monopoly on killing cyclists. School buses are good for it too!
Hey, what a coincidence, my cousin died from the same thing, except she was driving a car, and she didn't die instantly she was initially conscious, but she passed away before rescuers could extricate her from the car.
I'm pretty sure the lungfuls of car exhaust will counteract that benefit. Hell, I knew a truck driver who had his chest cracked open looking for problems only to find it was just the build up of decades of soot from sitting in traffic so much.
“Even in Delhi, one of the most polluted cities in the world – with pollution levels ten times those in London – people would need to cycle over five hours per week before the pollution risks outweigh the health benefits.
This was the comment I was waiting on. Heart failure and cancer aren't really "let's bike to work god I feel alive just now!"style diseases.
They are god let's stay home and have someone drive us to anywhere we need to go diseases...
My doctor recommended that my father ride a bike for exercise after his heart surgery after his second heart attack. And he did. He was no racer, but managed to ride a few miles around the neighborhood most days. I'm regular cyclist and older than my dad was after his first heart attack, and so far, I'm showing no signs of similar heart disease (though my diet is much better, so I can't attribute it to exercise alone)
So it's not true that heart disease and cycling don't go together.
Bikes don't belong around cars. Bike lanes should be only built on the sidewalks, bikers don't pay neither taxes nor fees to have lanes given to them by the idiotic governments. I say hit every bike that is on the road, do it on purpose, run them off the roads even in bike lanes unless it is a *toll road* and they *paid* to take it.
I don't know how your roads are paid, but around here, local roads are paid almost entirely out of property and sales taxes, and as a cyclist, I pay a lot of money in those taxes. Plus I pay registration fees for my car that's off the road while I'm cycling.
So it's not at all true that cyclists don't pay for roads -- we don't pay gas taxes, but cyclists cause virtually zero wear and tear on roads, no road ever needs to be repaved because of bike traffic.
When I was growing up, we were taught to ride out bikes on the sidewalk since it was safer.
Cycling on the sidewalk is much less safe -- most cyclists are hit in intersections, and on a sidewalk every driveway is an intersection, worse, many drivers don't even look before backing out into the sidewalk. Even as a runner I've had many more close calls on the sidewalk with cars pulling out across the sidewalk without looking that when running on the road.
Look, roads were made for cars and trucks. If you ride a motorcycle or bicycle on the road, anything that happens to you is your fault. A smart person surrounds himself in steel to protect him from stupid assholes on the road. Only retards think that they don't need it.
Actually, roads were originally made for (and paid by) cyclists:
Bike to work is healthy and back to home might be dangerous if you get late according to my wife's rules.
What kind of wife do you have that she'd be upset that you're doing something that's healthy?
Bike commuting doesn't have to make a commute significantly longer, my commute is a bit faster by bike because I can take a shortcut through a park that is inaccessible to cars, and I take a bike bridge over the freeway so I avoid the stop-and-go freeway traffic.
The surprising thing about a bike commute is how consistent is -- I get to work within 5 minutes of the same amount of time every day, while when I drive and have to be there at a particular time, I have to pad the drive time by 20 minutes to account for unexpected traffic delays.
My job is 20 miles and 4 valleys away. To add to that a vehicle "in good working order and an acceptable license" are required as a term of my employment.
I can think of a few environmentalist cranks who would encourage people in such a situation to get a different job.
Moving closer doesn't help if it is part of your job description to visit clients' land or haul more work equipment than will fit in a reasonable bike trailer.
The major downside: if you don't ride your bike, the public will miss getting to see you in the tight black spandex that all bikers seem to feel a compulsion to wear. The gay community in particular will be disappointed. In the name of tolerance you should not disappoint the gay community. Therefore car travel is a bigoted idea and supports hatred of LGBT people. So you see, you must bike, for the good of the society!
It's lycra, not spandex, and few commuters wear full-on bike gear. Most people wear the same clothes they wear at work. It's the recreational riders that are more likely to wear bike gear... and there's a good reason for it -- similar to why few people wear jeans to lift weights at the gym.
Moving closer doesn't help if it is part of your job description to visit clients' land or haul more work equipment than will fit in a reasonable bike trailer.
You could commute by bike and leave your car at work if that was really what's holding you back from bike commuting.
There is local and there is local Is a building on the same LAN (extended) half a mile away from the DC local? In that building you store yourt backups? are they local? are they at the same risk as storing those backups in the same building as the DC? Please tell us so we can benefit from your experience and infinite wisdom {sic}
Personally, I'd consider anything with a mile to be "local" since there are disasters (fire/flood/hurricane/tornado/earthquake/riots) that can affect both buildings. I've only recently added "rioting" to the list of disasters to protect against after seeing what happened to a friend's business in Berkeley.
My important data is replicated live across 3 separate datacenters located miles apart, with snapshots pushed several times a day to a different cloud provider on the other side of the country.
Slashdot Mirror
What so afraid of the future?
Robots will eventually build robots for only raw materials cost
Free robots will mean no labour price.
Products will be free
Mankind free to think
First you need to find a source of free energy
Will take some generations but...
Dumb people will be extinct!
Wake up
A robot revolution is no reason to think dumb people will become extinct -- when intelligence and hard work are no longer important, those qualities will be less prevalent in society.
Yes.. because all of the people that will lose their jobs to the robotic overlords will be protected... by the concept of the living wage. This is another socialist myth where people will gather an income for doing nothing.. based on taxing those that do something. This is so future-forward we already have examples of it!
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/05/19/venezuela-incredible-legacy-experiment-with-socialism.html
You're confusing "living wage" (i.e. a wage that's high enough to live on) with basic income (basic income payments that everyone gets regardless of whether or where they work).
As more and more jobs are displaced, you can ignore unemployable people at your peril - people that are disenfranchised and feel that they are marginalized and left to die with no way to feed or shelter themselves or family have a way of taking what they want from those that have it regardless of what they need to do to get it.
Retail work is some of the most thankless, soul-flaying work there is.
It is also work that adds very little value. A checkout clerk isn't actually producing anything. A self-checkout kiosk can already do the same job, and is often better because the lines can be shorter.
A good cashier adds value to the company by upselling at the time of purchase "This shirt looks great, but did you see that we have scarves on sale? See the one I'm wearing? That blue one would go great with that shirt". I've watched it work on my wife, and it's quite effective. I don't see the same capability being effective with a checkout kiosk.
Perhaps not so effective at a grocery store or Home Depo, but automated checkout kiosks are already popular at those stores.
1.9 million active email addresses and about 1,700 names and active phone numbers.
Remember the good old days when phone books ruled the earth? *1 The intrusion! OMG -- people could actually see how to spell your full name! AND obtain your phone number! AND your actual physical address.
Back then it took real money (and actual humans) to set up a call center to try to bilk you out of your money.
Now you set up an IVR system to dial millions of numbers in the list and when you have an active lead, send that call to a live agent.
It's so cheap that they don't need to start with a list, they can just dial numbers randomly and let the computers screen for leads, but having actual names helps make a scam more believable.
You don't need more than a $10, simple, scientific calculator, it will have all the features you need. Instead of giving kids a tool that prevents them from learning the concepts, why not have them learn the concepts and provide them a simple tool to help them along the way.
When I took calculus, advanced calculus, and vector calculus, we weren't allowed to have a calculator in the classroom or exams, because once you got the equation you needed, in the right form, the answer didn't matter. This is how every child should learn math.
Even in engineering school, I don't remember actually needing my calculator for very much, besides crunching a final answer, which was a very small amount of the overall work.
So you didn't need to use a calculator except to find the actual answer? What if the question is "Plot a curve of this function", do you get out the graph paper, calculate the values at a number of points along the curve and then draw it by hand?
How is this phone app embedded into standardized testing, which I assume is done on normal computers without touchscreens? Using a calculator is clunky without a touchscreen - typing numbers using the keyboard may be easy, but clicking on other buttons (or memorizing keyboard shortcuts) sounds like it'll slow them down.
I don't think I've actually ever used a graphing calculator, but I do *require* one that uses RPN, which pretty much means HP...
On Android, I've been pretty satisfied with RealCalc as an RPN calculator (no graphing though). I used to use some HP-48 emulator, but found RealCalc easier to use on my phone. I lost my real HP-48 in a move once... it may still be packed away in a box somewhere. My venerable HP-15C was stolen from my car years ago, I've been tempted to buy a new used one, but $200+ is a lot to spend on a something I use so rarely.
Not loading down the spaceship with useless baggage is always a good idea. Hopefully Orion will continue to be unmanned.
Nah - you don't understand many (most) space junkies. With humans in space, I support defense department type funding. Your dream of no humans. I support a budget of exactly $0.00.
Sorry but for most of us, your useless baggage is our raison d'être for a space program.
Why would anyone interested in space exploration care if an initial test flight around the moon has human passengers or not? What value is there in putting actual humans on a 3 week round trip? If something does fail on the trip and kills the humans, it'll delay the project for a decade or longer.
If you have signed something in writing to that affect. If no such contract exists, and it is found that the employee is spending significant uncompensated after-hours time working for the employer, then the courts should tell everyone involved to get lost.
Maybe they should, but I don't think they would.If an employee thinks he's working too many hours, without a contract that says otherwise, the exempt employee's recourse (in almost every state of the USA) to renegotiate with the employer (higher salary, or perhaps getting permission to work on personal projects at work) or to find new employment - he doesn't get to run his personal business in his employer's office because he thinks he worked too late last night.
If the employee doesn't get paid for the OT then the time he worked at 11pm was not compensated. Therefore personal time spend during work hours should be fair because they are just reclaiming the personal time they lost.
"should be" is not the same as "would be" -- unless he's worked it out in advance with his employer, his employer can claim that anything the employee is working on is owned by the company.
While the simple answer might be that I should always be on task during work hours, I strongly doubt my bosses would like me to just abdicate when a job finishes at 11PM and needs my attention but doesn't get it until the next morning, nor do they want to pay for another person to do it (even if that were remotely possible, which it isn't). So if I'm dicking around in the middle of the day, and I'm at the office just to maintain office hours, it should be assumed that I'm simply not on company time right now.
But unless you've worked out some special arrangement your employer, it wouldn't be assumed that you're not on company time when you're in the office "working", and depending on your employment contract, your company may own whatever you're working on on their time and equipment.
In my company, when you're you put in significant after-hours work, you take time off from the office, you don't go to the office and pretend you're working.
He's and EE not a Civil or Mechanical engineer. He's got no business at all using his engineering degree to discuss things way outside the realm of his field. The state was 100% correct and should have fined him in the thousands.
Unless you're a civil rights attorney, you have no business at all using your degree (if you even have one) to discuss free speech. If it's not within your field of study, then you obviously can't know anything about it since civil rights are very technical and specialized and require years of study before you can even utter one word about the topic.
I was in a small town too, everyone know sidewalks were for pedestrians and bikes. And we went slow, we stopped, we started, we stopped again, etc. We did not ride like modern cyclists with full set of expensive gear trying to make a speed record on the way to work weaving into and out of traffic. The road was much less safe. Even in the city now, the roads are murderous, viewing is bad, speed limit for cars too high, bike lanes too small (and when they aren't the cyclists still want to be far left on the white line for some reason).
That's the thing about commuter cyclists, they have someplace to go and don't ride like wobbly kids on their first bike.
There's no reason for speed limits to be too high or bike lanes too narrow, if a city wants biking to be safer, then they can make it safer. The reason why bikes ride out of the bike lane (when it really is a bike lane and not just a shoulder that drivers *think* is a bike lane) is because cars tend to kick debris into the bike lane. A separated bike lane, even with a low curb-like separator) is much safer in the respect since most road debris won't jump the barrier.
My cousin's husband was an avid cyclist. He was hit by a school bus and killed instantly. Transit buses don't have a monopoly on killing cyclists. School buses are good for it too!
Hey, what a coincidence, my cousin died from the same thing, except she was driving a car, and she didn't die instantly she was initially conscious, but she passed away before rescuers could extricate her from the car.
I'm pretty sure the lungfuls of car exhaust will counteract that benefit. Hell, I knew a truck driver who had his chest cracked open looking for problems only to find it was just the build up of decades of soot from sitting in traffic so much.
That's not true in most cities:
https://www.theguardian.com/en...
“Even in Delhi, one of the most polluted cities in the world – with pollution levels ten times those in London – people would need to cycle over five hours per week before the pollution risks outweigh the health benefits.
This was the comment I was waiting on. Heart failure and cancer aren't really "let's bike to work god I feel alive just now!"style diseases.
They are god let's stay home and have someone drive us to anywhere we need to go diseases...
My doctor recommended that my father ride a bike for exercise after his heart surgery after his second heart attack. And he did. He was no racer, but managed to ride a few miles around the neighborhood most days. I'm regular cyclist and older than my dad was after his first heart attack, and so far, I'm showing no signs of similar heart disease (though my diet is much better, so I can't attribute it to exercise alone)
So it's not true that heart disease and cycling don't go together.
Bikes don't belong around cars. Bike lanes should be only built on the sidewalks, bikers don't pay neither taxes nor fees to have lanes given to them by the idiotic governments. I say hit every bike that is on the road, do it on purpose, run them off the roads even in bike lanes unless it is a *toll road* and they *paid* to take it.
I don't know how your roads are paid, but around here, local roads are paid almost entirely out of property and sales taxes, and as a cyclist, I pay a lot of money in those taxes. Plus I pay registration fees for my car that's off the road while I'm cycling.
So it's not at all true that cyclists don't pay for roads -- we don't pay gas taxes, but cyclists cause virtually zero wear and tear on roads, no road ever needs to be repaved because of bike traffic.
When I was growing up, we were taught to ride out bikes on the sidewalk since it was safer.
Cycling on the sidewalk is much less safe -- most cyclists are hit in intersections, and on a sidewalk every driveway is an intersection, worse, many drivers don't even look before backing out into the sidewalk. Even as a runner I've had many more close calls on the sidewalk with cars pulling out across the sidewalk without looking that when running on the road.
Look, roads were made for cars and trucks. If you ride a motorcycle or bicycle on the road, anything that happens to you is your fault. A smart person surrounds himself in steel to protect him from stupid assholes on the road. Only retards think that they don't need it.
Actually, roads were originally made for (and paid by) cyclists:
https://www.theguardian.com/en...
Surrounding yourself in steel doesn't seem to make drivers very safe when 35,000 people a year are killed in car crashes.
Bike to work is healthy and back to home might be dangerous if you get late according to my wife's rules.
What kind of wife do you have that she'd be upset that you're doing something that's healthy?
Bike commuting doesn't have to make a commute significantly longer, my commute is a bit faster by bike because I can take a shortcut through a park that is inaccessible to cars, and I take a bike bridge over the freeway so I avoid the stop-and-go freeway traffic.
The surprising thing about a bike commute is how consistent is -- I get to work within 5 minutes of the same amount of time every day, while when I drive and have to be there at a particular time, I have to pad the drive time by 20 minutes to account for unexpected traffic delays.
outweigh any of the additional risks
If that includes getting run over by a transit bus, the benefits must be truly remarkable.
You ought to look up "risk" -- few cyclists will be run over by a transit bus. And it's not like a car commute is free of risk.
My job is 20 miles and 4 valleys away. To add to that a vehicle "in good working order and an acceptable license" are required as a term of my employment.
I can think of a few environmentalist cranks who would encourage people in such a situation to get a different job.
Or live closer to work.
Moving closer doesn't help if it is part of your job description to visit clients' land or haul more work equipment than will fit in a reasonable bike trailer.
The major downside: if you don't ride your bike, the public will miss getting to see you in the tight black spandex that all bikers seem to feel a compulsion to wear. The gay community in particular will be disappointed. In the name of tolerance you should not disappoint the gay community. Therefore car travel is a bigoted idea and supports hatred of LGBT people. So you see, you must bike, for the good of the society!
It's lycra, not spandex, and few commuters wear full-on bike gear. Most people wear the same clothes they wear at work. It's the recreational riders that are more likely to wear bike gear... and there's a good reason for it -- similar to why few people wear jeans to lift weights at the gym.
Moving closer doesn't help if it is part of your job description to visit clients' land or haul more work equipment than will fit in a reasonable bike trailer.
You could commute by bike and leave your car at work if that was really what's holding you back from bike commuting.
There is local and there is local
Is a building on the same LAN (extended) half a mile away from the DC local? In that building you store yourt backups?
are they local? are they at the same risk as storing those backups in the same building as the DC?
Please tell us so we can benefit from your experience and infinite wisdom {sic}
Personally, I'd consider anything with a mile to be "local" since there are disasters (fire/flood/hurricane/tornado/earthquake/riots) that can affect both buildings. I've only recently added "rioting" to the list of disasters to protect against after seeing what happened to a friend's business in Berkeley.
My important data is replicated live across 3 separate datacenters located miles apart, with snapshots pushed several times a day to a different cloud provider on the other side of the country.