Capitalism does not guarantee low unemployment. It doesn't guarantee a meritocracy. We are fortunate that new technology has previously created new jobs for people to apply skills that gave them value to the rich. But as automation approaches human capabilities in more areas, there will be fewer opportunities available for humans. For those who don't already own capital, eventually the only jobs available to humans will be in the entertainment industry.
The robots are taking our jobs. So what happens? Do we have 3 day work weeks with the same pay? Do we wear capes and tights and ponder the higher arts and philosophy while robot servants take care of our physical needs?
Or was the last century a fluke where a large middle class had power, which will soon revert to the more common system in human history where a tiny few live in splendor and the rest live under their heel?
I think that we can safely assume that people 1000 times as smart as us will want to continue living. And chances are pretty good that they will be nigh immortal. Nigh immortal beings need lots of resources over time. But another factor will be to limit competition for resources. Immortal, highly intelligent creatures will want to make sure that other immortal, highly intelligent creatures won't come along and take their resources. It all comes back to survival. Being 1000 times as intelligent as humans doesn't mean squat if you're dead.
I was once invited to a meeting with the customer because my manager was sick. When people started talking schedule I casually mentioned the 18 months it would take to complete the software. The customer went ballistic. Apparently the schedule I gave my manager never made it to the customer.
I was never invited to a meeting with the customer again.
It took me a few years for me to discipline myself to including testing and bug fixes in any estimate I made to managers. When ever I would say, "I'll finish coding by X," they would always assume that it would be in release condition by then.
(snark)Before you know it, they are only going to be written by professional writers, with scientists and mathematicians just providing the data.(/snark)
Given two conflicting theories, is it more or less likely that the one that most scientist agree with will be correct? Now apply this to multiple instances of conflicting theories. I hope that statistically, the majority of scientists are correct most of the time.
If it's going to be used as a currency, I would rather have it stay $20 for a long period of time than have it jump up to $90. Now, if it stays around $90 for the next year, that would be good. Then I could use it to buy and sell stuff.
Hawking tends to bet on the more controversial side of a scientific debate, and thus the less likely side. He does not play it safe. Of course, statistically he's going to lose. But when he wins ( Hawking Radiation ) he gets stuff named after him.
Forbes seems to be indicating that there is a qualitative difference between dollars and bitcoins when it comes to the fluctuation in value, when in fact the difference is quantitative.
The word "yuan" means so many things in Chinese if you don't get the tone right no one will know what you're talking about. Whenever I talked about money I would say "RMB". That was generally understood.
Actually, capitalism on a large scale requires government (at least so far). Who else is going to provide the currency that capitalism needs to function?
In ten years all operating systems will be Android, which will be confusing because eventually we will be building real androids, and we'll have to make up a new name for them because everyone will be thinking of the operating system.
Microsoft first made it's money by selling operating systems, and for a couple decades, it was a smart move. Google makes it's money by being an advertising conduit to as many people as possible. The greatest threat to that conduit is the walled garden, enforced by competing operating systems that Google can't control. Open source Android is a brilliant way to neutralize the walled garden. Advertising generates far more money globally than selling software. We could do a lot worse than having the internet's biggest advertiser providing a free, open source operating system. They are confident enough in their dominance in search not to try to lock down the internet in their own walled garden.
Only a small amount of fusion is needed to power a rocket – a small grain of sand of this material has the same energy content as 1 gallon of rocket fuel.
Slashdot Mirror
High school physics is now a surprise to people. I am sad.
Combined with a form of fusion
In twenty years. Fusion is twenty years away, and always will be.
I program industrial robots for a living. I don't see a majority of people doing my job.
Capitalism does not guarantee low unemployment. It doesn't guarantee a meritocracy. We are fortunate that new technology has previously created new jobs for people to apply skills that gave them value to the rich. But as automation approaches human capabilities in more areas, there will be fewer opportunities available for humans. For those who don't already own capital, eventually the only jobs available to humans will be in the entertainment industry.
The robots are taking our jobs. So what happens? Do we have 3 day work weeks with the same pay? Do we wear capes and tights and ponder the higher arts and philosophy while robot servants take care of our physical needs?
Or was the last century a fluke where a large middle class had power, which will soon revert to the more common system in human history where a tiny few live in splendor and the rest live under their heel?
There are more resources here than what it will take to get here. Profit!
I think that we can safely assume that people 1000 times as smart as us will want to continue living. And chances are pretty good that they will be nigh immortal. Nigh immortal beings need lots of resources over time. But another factor will be to limit competition for resources. Immortal, highly intelligent creatures will want to make sure that other immortal, highly intelligent creatures won't come along and take their resources. It all comes back to survival. Being 1000 times as intelligent as humans doesn't mean squat if you're dead.
I was once invited to a meeting with the customer because my manager was sick. When people started talking schedule I casually mentioned the 18 months it would take to complete the software. The customer went ballistic. Apparently the schedule I gave my manager never made it to the customer.
I was never invited to a meeting with the customer again.
It took me a few years for me to discipline myself to including testing and bug fixes in any estimate I made to managers. When ever I would say, "I'll finish coding by X," they would always assume that it would be in release condition by then.
(snark)Before you know it, they are only going to be written by professional writers, with scientists and mathematicians just providing the data.(/snark)
Given two conflicting theories, is it more or less likely that the one that most scientist agree with will be correct? Now apply this to multiple instances of conflicting theories. I hope that statistically, the majority of scientists are correct most of the time.
If it's going to be used as a currency, I would rather have it stay $20 for a long period of time than have it jump up to $90. Now, if it stays around $90 for the next year, that would be good. Then I could use it to buy and sell stuff.
Hawking tends to bet on the more controversial side of a scientific debate, and thus the less likely side. He does not play it safe. Of course, statistically he's going to lose. But when he wins ( Hawking Radiation ) he gets stuff named after him.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, 'hmm... that's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
17?
Forbes seems to be indicating that there is a qualitative difference between dollars and bitcoins when it comes to the fluctuation in value, when in fact the difference is quantitative.
Android for the desktop. Coming soon.
John, you'll have to mention Natalie Portman or Soviet Russia to have any chance of fooling anyone on Slashdot. Do some research first.
'MFC-based Windows programming'. Really? You're not going to win us over with that argument.
The word "yuan" means so many things in Chinese if you don't get the tone right no one will know what you're talking about. Whenever I talked about money I would say "RMB". That was generally understood.
Actually, capitalism on a large scale requires government (at least so far). Who else is going to provide the currency that capitalism needs to function?
In ten years all operating systems will be Android, which will be confusing because eventually we will be building real androids, and we'll have to make up a new name for them because everyone will be thinking of the operating system.
Microsoft first made it's money by selling operating systems, and for a couple decades, it was a smart move. Google makes it's money by being an advertising conduit to as many people as possible. The greatest threat to that conduit is the walled garden, enforced by competing operating systems that Google can't control. Open source Android is a brilliant way to neutralize the walled garden. Advertising generates far more money globally than selling software. We could do a lot worse than having the internet's biggest advertiser providing a free, open source operating system. They are confident enough in their dominance in search not to try to lock down the internet in their own walled garden.
Alright, I've just been to Wikipedia and what I really meant was 'concrete noun.' I've really got to go there first before I post anything.
And for you grammar nazis, I meant 'proper noun'.
Only a small amount of fusion is needed to power a rocket – a small grain of sand of this material has the same energy content as 1 gallon of rocket fuel.
Fusion is a process, not a material.