I, too, would prefer the third option, but in all likelihood reality will reflect the first, go very, very wrong, which will cause the mindless reactionaries to move towards the second, like the frightened sheep they are.
Look - I want to live in Star Trek's universe as much as the next Slashdotter, but my experience with human nature tells me it ain't likely to happen in any of our lifetimes, if ever.
Insofar, this is the only response I've gotten that actually addresses what I asked, and is not merely the reaction of butthurt fanbois who don't like the concept of someone questioning their sacred cattle. Plus, it's quite reasonable and realistic
what new careers do you foresee, that current professional drivers would qualify for?
As well as
What's the stop-gap for the time period between auto-cars taking work from humans, work they need to pay their bills, and the creation of these ephemeral 'new jobs' that won't exist for a good while?
To which you responded
Yes, jobs will shift to different demographics.
All I can think to say is something along the lines of, "No shit, Sherlock - I was kind of looking for specifics."
I'm curious - what new careers do you foresee, that current professional drivers would qualify for?
I was a trucker for 20 years. I've just been given an offer of a place at a top 10 university to do a BEng (Hons) in Electronics Engineering. Not all of us do trucking because we're incapable of doing anything else and I find your insinuation that we are quite insulting.
I find your assumption that my statement is an insinuation of an inherent lack of non-driving-related skills, and thus an insult to professional drivers, quite telling - Firstly, being offered an opportunity to pay for a Bachelor's Degree isn't really all that impressive, considering how many other people in the world have received similar offers. It's also not a paying job, so far as I'm aware; what will you do to cover expenses while in the program?
Also, there is something to be said for experience - 20 years behind the wheel of a semi might help you get an EE job once you finish your degree... on the other hand, it might hinder you, since a lot of employers today want people with degrees and field experience. If you're not lucky, you might just end up back behind the wheel of that big-rig, sans a few tens of thousands of dollars.
Finally, I wanted to state for the record that I hold no ill will towards those who drive for a living - my uncle and one of my best friends are both lifetime OTR drivers, and without guys like that our economy would grind to a standstill.
I'm curious - what new careers do you foresee, that current professional drivers would qualify for? Or are you saying they should give up their fairly-decent-wage driving work and go flip burgers whilst sucking hind teet for minimum wage, social consequences be damned?
See, that's the real problem - I'm sure we can all come up with a million ideas for work the next few generations can do, but that means precisely jack shit to the current generation who will lose their only source of income.
What's the stop-gap for the time period between auto-cars taking work from humans, work they need to pay their bills, and the creation of these ephemeral 'new jobs' that won't exist for a good while?
hacking a web site isn't much of an accomplishment. rather like spray painting over a billboard. taking over a serious system such as a banking mainframe network would be impressive but that requires real knowledge and skill
This.
Wake me when they manage to DDoS Wall Street for a couple days.
which I got just by following links in the original post. I'm always amazed by people who criticize others on hearsay when the source material is readily available.
Even though, by your own admission ("following links in the original post..." Which post? Which links? there were a lot), the information wasn't all that easily accessible.
> Good thing I never said that, huh?
I never said you said it. This thread ain't all about you.
You were directly responding to my comment. If that was not your intent, i.e. you were making a global reference, then you failed to make whom was being addressed clear.
Anyway, I read the paper... and stand by my convictions.
From the paper, regarding the type of frivolous litigation I referenced:
If this is a genuine risk, it might make sense to respond, not by banning those lawsuits, but by forcing those who bring frivolous ones to pay the defendants’ attorneys fees. Of course there would be issues in deciding on the identity of representatives and choosing the people who would pick them. But we are not yet in especially controversial territory.
So, basically, his rationale is "well, they might have to pay the defendant's court costs, but it's not worth discussing because it hasn't happened yet."
As someone who has been wrongfully sued over total bullshit, found innocent, and was still unable to force the offending party to pay for my unnecessary defense, I find the first claim dubious at best. As a person capable of cogent reasoning, I have the same feeling about his second statement - it doesn't take a soothsayer to know what kind of shady shit terrorist groups like PETA would get involved with if they were legally able.
The fact that he subsequently goes on to claim that all hunting should be banned out of a lack of (what he considers) necessity, and suggests a similar ban on the eating of meat, only further serves to solidify my belief that Cass Sunstein is a tin-foil-hat-covered-in-guano nutjob, who is obsessed with the sound of his own words.
Which union? I was a member of the Glass, Mould, and Pottery Makers Union for several years, and never saw any of these sort of tactics employed.
FWIW, my dues were $2 a paycheck, at a time when I was banking almost $2,000/wk. Not what I would consider a ripoff, especially considering that it was because of the union I made such fat-ass pay.
From what I understand, the "startup" designation specifically refers to an early point in the business lifecycle, as a function of both time and funding.
Going by this example, Uber would be out of Start-up by now, and is solidly in the Growth phase.
OK, fair enough. I suppose my real annoyance is at all the stupid stuff you just mentioned, and thus should register my distaste accordingly, not take it out on those who defend the medium.
Citation? I would consider either a link to the paper you speak of, or at least a quotation of how the problem is addressed to be sufficient.
While I agree it's a serious potential problem, that doesn't mean anyone who supports the idea is therefore a loony
Good thing I never said that, huh? Pointing out that crazy assholes would support it does not automagically imply that everyone who supports it is a crazy asshole.
Then again, can you explain how it's not a completely insane idea? I'm coming up blank myself.
Comprehension tip: "It proposes allowing private citizens to sue someone else for violating existing cruelty laws".
So? I used a bad example. That doesn't change the absolute fact that extremist animal rights groups would use the ruling as a club against pet owners. It would be like being sued over copyright violation - doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, most people can't afford to spend years fighting bullshit in court.
My wife suffers from Celiac Disease; essentially, she's highly allergic to all forms of gluten, be it from wheat, barley, malt, what-have-you. Not deathly allergic, but pretty damn close. Say what you want, but until you've spent 2-3 days shitting and vomiting almost non-stop from something as simple as accidentally ingesting a small amount of bread or taking a sip of a malt, you have no idea what she deals with and should subsequently shut your fucking mouth.
Anyway, we understand that her condition is our problem, not anyone else's, and thus she pretty much keeps it to herself as she's not a completely narcissistic bitch. I.e., "people like you."
P.S. "Rights," whether real or perceived, have nothing to do with it - nobody is responsible for your health or safety but yourself.
You should try reading his actual paper. It proposes allowing private citizens to sue someone else for violating existing cruelty laws.
Yea, sounds great in theory, until you realize that there are several 'private,' well-funded groups of lunatics who would use such a law to tie up the courts with ignorant shit like suing dog owners for neutering their animals.
Do you really think it wise to give crazy fringe assholes like PETA that kind of power?
Why should I stop driving my big SUV when everyone else still gets to go out and have fun in their SUVs?
Or, why should I give a rat's ass about the piddling amount of pollution that comes from my one tailpipe, when megalithic corporations pay off the government to look the other way, as they dump orders of magnitude more shit into the environment in a week than little ol' me could produce in a lifetime?
Slashdot Mirror
Another non-response. Got it.
Won't bother you again.
I had always heard that the residents of Iceland named it, in order to trick Viking raiding parties.
No citation, pure heresay.
I, too, would prefer the third option, but in all likelihood reality will reflect the first, go very, very wrong, which will cause the mindless reactionaries to move towards the second, like the frightened sheep they are.
Look - I want to live in Star Trek's universe as much as the next Slashdotter, but my experience with human nature tells me it ain't likely to happen in any of our lifetimes, if ever.
Insofar, this is the only response I've gotten that actually addresses what I asked, and is not merely the reaction of butthurt fanbois who don't like the concept of someone questioning their sacred cattle. Plus, it's quite reasonable and realistic
Thanks for that, dude.
OK, so I asked you the following:
what new careers do you foresee, that current professional drivers would qualify for?
As well as
What's the stop-gap for the time period between auto-cars taking work from humans, work they need to pay their bills, and the creation of these ephemeral 'new jobs' that won't exist for a good while?
To which you responded
Yes, jobs will shift to different demographics.
All I can think to say is something along the lines of, "No shit, Sherlock - I was kind of looking for specifics."
Nevermind the new jobs that this will enable.
I'm curious - what new careers do you foresee, that current professional drivers would qualify for?
I was a trucker for 20 years. I've just been given an offer of a place at a top 10 university to do a BEng (Hons) in Electronics Engineering. Not all of us do trucking because we're incapable of doing anything else and I find your insinuation that we are quite insulting.
I find your assumption that my statement is an insinuation of an inherent lack of non-driving-related skills, and thus an insult to professional drivers, quite telling - Firstly, being offered an opportunity to pay for a Bachelor's Degree isn't really all that impressive, considering how many other people in the world have received similar offers. It's also not a paying job, so far as I'm aware; what will you do to cover expenses while in the program?
Also, there is something to be said for experience - 20 years behind the wheel of a semi might help you get an EE job once you finish your degree... on the other hand, it might hinder you, since a lot of employers today want people with degrees and field experience. If you're not lucky, you might just end up back behind the wheel of that big-rig, sans a few tens of thousands of dollars.
Finally, I wanted to state for the record that I hold no ill will towards those who drive for a living - my uncle and one of my best friends are both lifetime OTR drivers, and without guys like that our economy would grind to a standstill.
I'm not making an argument. I'm pointing out a very real possibility, and asking for input on possible solutions. In other words, it's an RFI.
Nevermind the new jobs that this will enable.
I'm curious - what new careers do you foresee, that current professional drivers would qualify for? Or are you saying they should give up their fairly-decent-wage driving work and go flip burgers whilst sucking hind teet for minimum wage, social consequences be damned?
See, that's the real problem - I'm sure we can all come up with a million ideas for work the next few generations can do, but that means precisely jack shit to the current generation who will lose their only source of income.
What's the stop-gap for the time period between auto-cars taking work from humans, work they need to pay their bills, and the creation of these ephemeral 'new jobs' that won't exist for a good while?
hacking a web site isn't much of an accomplishment. rather like spray painting over a billboard. taking over a serious system such as a banking mainframe network would be impressive but that requires real knowledge and skill
This.
Wake me when they manage to DDoS Wall Street for a couple days.
> Citation?
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=323661
which I got just by following links in the original post. I'm always amazed by people who criticize others on hearsay when the source material is readily available.
Even though, by your own admission ("following links in the original post..." Which post? Which links? there were a lot), the information wasn't all that easily accessible.
> Good thing I never said that, huh?
I never said you said it. This thread ain't all about you.
You were directly responding to my comment. If that was not your intent, i.e. you were making a global reference, then you failed to make whom was being addressed clear.
Anyway, I read the paper... and stand by my convictions.
From the paper, regarding the type of frivolous litigation I referenced:
So, basically, his rationale is "well, they might have to pay the defendant's court costs, but it's not worth discussing because it hasn't happened yet."
As someone who has been wrongfully sued over total bullshit, found innocent, and was still unable to force the offending party to pay for my unnecessary defense, I find the first claim dubious at best. As a person capable of cogent reasoning, I have the same feeling about his second statement - it doesn't take a soothsayer to know what kind of shady shit terrorist groups like PETA would get involved with if they were legally able.
The fact that he subsequently goes on to claim that all hunting should be banned out of a lack of (what he considers) necessity, and suggests a similar ban on the eating of meat, only further serves to solidify my belief that Cass Sunstein is a tin-foil-hat-covered-in-guano nutjob, who is obsessed with the sound of his own words.
Components in general become more interchangeable in the future.
That is quite the attractive alternative to the 'everyone has their own walled garden' approach we've seen of late.
Attractive from a consumer point of view, anyway.
Which union? I was a member of the Glass, Mould, and Pottery Makers Union for several years, and never saw any of these sort of tactics employed.
FWIW, my dues were $2 a paycheck, at a time when I was banking almost $2,000/wk. Not what I would consider a ripoff, especially considering that it was because of the union I made such fat-ass pay.
Solving a problem by introducing more problems is never a good plan.
Naysaying without offering any alternative is pretty much always a douchey thing to do.
Yea, yea, we get it, you've been instructed to hate unions. Wake me when you have something constructive to say.
Startup isn't a measure of dollars but time.
From what I understand, the "startup" designation specifically refers to an early point in the business lifecycle, as a function of both time and funding.
Going by this example, Uber would be out of Start-up by now, and is solidly in the Growth phase.
OK, fair enough. I suppose my real annoyance is at all the stupid stuff you just mentioned, and thus should register my distaste accordingly, not take it out on those who defend the medium.
That potential problem is addressed in the paper.
Citation? I would consider either a link to the paper you speak of, or at least a quotation of how the problem is addressed to be sufficient.
While I agree it's a serious potential problem, that doesn't mean anyone who supports the idea is therefore a loony
Good thing I never said that, huh? Pointing out that crazy assholes would support it does not automagically imply that everyone who supports it is a crazy asshole.
Then again, can you explain how it's not a completely insane idea? I'm coming up blank myself.
Comprehension tip: "It proposes allowing private citizens to sue someone else for violating existing cruelty laws".
So? I used a bad example. That doesn't change the absolute fact that extremist animal rights groups would use the ruling as a club against pet owners. It would be like being sued over copyright violation - doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, most people can't afford to spend years fighting bullshit in court.
It's not even proper engineer's mindset. An engineer speaks from field experience, or at least knowledge verified by past experimentation.
This is just some armchair know-it-all, like a lot of people commenting on Slashdot.
Blasphemy!
A software engineer, more likely.
Meh, could be worse - he might be an architect.
Can we please go more than month without someone posting an article about how there's little to no relationship between gaming and violent behavior?
Seriously - this was news 8 years ago. Nowadays it's just re-blogger-rent-seeking.
Everything you do is your responsibility.
FTFY.
Some allergies are apparently serious enough that putting your sandwich on the counter, and then later Bob touching that area causes a reaction.
Well, then, if I was Bob I'd be pretty damn careful about touching communal food preparation surfaces, now wouldn't I?
Why should that be anyone's problem but Bob's?
My wife suffers from Celiac Disease; essentially, she's highly allergic to all forms of gluten, be it from wheat, barley, malt, what-have-you. Not deathly allergic, but pretty damn close. Say what you want, but until you've spent 2-3 days shitting and vomiting almost non-stop from something as simple as accidentally ingesting a small amount of bread or taking a sip of a malt, you have no idea what she deals with and should subsequently shut your fucking mouth.
Anyway, we understand that her condition is our problem, not anyone else's, and thus she pretty much keeps it to herself as she's not a completely narcissistic bitch. I.e., "people like you."
P.S. "Rights," whether real or perceived, have nothing to do with it - nobody is responsible for your health or safety but yourself.
You should try reading his actual paper. It proposes allowing private citizens to sue someone else for violating existing cruelty laws.
Yea, sounds great in theory, until you realize that there are several 'private,' well-funded groups of lunatics who would use such a law to tie up the courts with ignorant shit like suing dog owners for neutering their animals.
Do you really think it wise to give crazy fringe assholes like PETA that kind of power?
Which is why governments should use taxes to make that 30mpg car HURT your pocketbook more than the 50mpg car.
You must not live in one of the allegedly free nations.
Why should I stop driving my big SUV when everyone else still gets to go out and have fun in their SUVs?
Or, why should I give a rat's ass about the piddling amount of pollution that comes from my one tailpipe, when megalithic corporations pay off the government to look the other way, as they dump orders of magnitude more shit into the environment in a week than little ol' me could produce in a lifetime?