I get my choice? I think I'll pick...Charlize Theron.
So we have creeping automation that is working its way up the social-economic ladder. This is happening.
Absent the loaded adjective...I can accept that. So stipulated. Let it show in the record.
The why of that fact is that the users of that automation find it profitable to eliminate the cost of employing people.
Yeah, you're focusing on one part of what has to be at least -- at least -- a four-part system. Automation and employing people both have costs. Those costs can be initial, repetitive, and exiting. Whenever the cost of one type of interchangeable economic input is more attractive to a producer than another then it benefits him to use the more attractive choice. That removes that choice, those resources, from other users, but releases the other choice for other producers or consumers.
Now it is pretty incontestable that if the trend continues - and it will - at some point, we will hit a unpleasant point where manufacturers cannot squeak more profit out of a system that has been made very lean, coupled with and overall economy in which most of the population is nothing more than a drain.
Yeah...no. It's not as incontestable as you're letting on. You're neglecting, among a myriad of other things, the fact that there are advancements in productivity, and the fact that preferences change. As an example of the former I offer the cyanide process for gold extraction, and as an example of the latter I offer the buggy whip.
So if we use the current model, there will be a need for a massive culling...[massive deletion]
Given that your premise is false, none of your conclusions follow.
This is a massively complicated issue. 19th century economics will not solve it. Our lizard brain is not going to solve it.
It would take about three seconds for any human to come up with a workaround that could justify doing just about anything and still technically conform to the laws. Less than three seconds if you allow the zero'th law.
That wouldn't matter, because Asimov's robots don't obey the sixty-three words of the three laws. They obey the literally thousands of thousands of positronic pathways created for them in the factory. The sixty-three words are a sort of executive summary of what the three laws require, so creating a workaround would be unavailing to the robots.
The whole point of the Three Laws was to illustrate the holes in the concept of the Three Laws.
You couldn't be more wrong. The three laws grew out of a conversation with John Campbell where Asimov asserted that the endlessly repeating Frankenstein's monster-type robot stories wouldn't happen in the real world. Designers would place safeguards around robots just like they place safeguards around every other dangerous thing. I'm reminded of an anecdote regarding a new energy source that was presented to a college class. It had the unfortunate traits of being an odorless poisonous gas that also happened to be explosive. The class was allowed to vote, and they voted to prohibit the energy source. It turns out that the energy source had been used for home heating for decades. Among other safeguards, designers added odorants and automatic shut-off valves for when the pilot blew out. Campbell challenged him to describe robot safeguards, and then challenged him to write stories about them.
EVERY Azimov Robot story was designed to show the unintended consequences of the Three Laws....
Helene Fritzon received a proposal which would create crimes of gross infringement under both copyright and trademark law, leading to sentences of up to six years in prison.
You can get a lot of political contributions from copyright holders; hardly any from murderers.
It isn't in society's interest to ensure that Damore has a job like it is for convicted felons. We often don't allow employers to ask convicts whether they've been convicted, because if the convicts can't find a job they may turn to stealing or murder for hire in order to support themselves. If Damore has to steal or murder to feed himself, then we can throw him in prison, and society is no worse off.
And it's not like embezzlers or murderers make for a threatening work environment. All co-workers and employers are as pleased as can be that they're supporting society's best interests. The most important thing is just for us to remain consistent.
We will reduce our total workforce to less than 50,000 people by the end of this year, from some 60,000 staff at the end of 2017.
That's outrageous! People really need to contact them and let them know what they think about this statement. It's not less than 50,000 people. It's fewer than 50,000 people.
First of all in socialism governments have no monopoly on invention
Socialism, not socialism governments. Socialism happens when governments control the means of production. I've found that on Wikipedia, before, and in more scholarly publications. I'm sure you could find it after a short search if you have more than a very minimum level of competence. Article I section 8 of the US Constitution grants to congress the power of securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; Congress has chosen to exercise that power through patents, copyrights, trade marks, service marks, and trade secrets. A patent is a monopoly right on the production of a good or service. Thus, monopoly is socialism.
you are an idiot.
Stupid is as stupid does.
Secondly, vitamins are not invented.
Legally, they are. If they weren't then congress would be violating the constitution when they granted monopolies to vitamin producers. The supreme court has heard cases on this and very similar products, and has been disinclined to rein congress in, therefore, under US law this vitamin is an invention.
Idiot.
You repeat yourself.
You seem to think vitamins only exist in forms of pills and people need to eat them to be "more healthy"
I can't imagine what I might have said to give you that impression.
Socialism is not an easy fix for cases like this. Socialism caused this case. Namely, it was caused by socialising the cost of inventions by a) granting a government-created monopoly to the inventors of this vitamin and b) creating a government bureaucracy with the power to test medicine for safety and efficacy,
In a socialist system this vitamin wouldn't even be available because it never would have been developed in the first place.
The parts of that claim that are not vague are false.
Which frankly if you haven't found work in over a year, your motivation to find work must be nearly zero.
I haven't found work in over a year, and my motivation to find work is far from zero. I have two college degrees in a STEM field, but was laid off March 15, 2016. I did find work for three week in January, but nothing other than that. I'm not counted in the unemployment figure since my unemployment insurance ran out over ten months ago. My wife also has a college degree. She works two days a week, six hours a day, so she doesn't bring in much money. (Well, except for last week, when they asked her not to come in, so she didn't bring in any money.) She, too, isn't counted in the unemployment figure. My oldest son finally got work two months ago. He has a college degree, but is working for barely more than minimum wage. Despite being greatly underemployed, he isn't counted in the unemployment figure. My middle son also has a college degree, but is working for barely more than minimum wage. He, too, isn't counted in the unemployment figure. His new wife just got a job. She starts work next month. She, too, isn't counted in the unemployment figure. My youngest son it attending college. He, too, isn't counted in the unemployment figure. So, amongst the six of us who aren't working or are working for far less money than our educations suggest we should be making, none of us are counted in the unemployment figure. I know how we could get 0% unemployment in this country. Just don't count anyone.
You're only counting the negatives. If you count only the negatives, anything looks bad. Just as if you count only the positives anything looks good. Counting only my weight losses, I've lost 150 pounds. I must be the most resolute health guru on the planet. Coal-fired heating provides power for hospitals, homes, industry, research. It frees up oil for plastics, detergents, medicines, paints, fertilizers, plastics, synthetic fibers, and synthetic rubber. It frees up natural gas for hydrogen, ammonia, fabrics, glass, steel, more plastics, and more paint. It frees up purified silicon (from photo-voltaic use) for computers, televisions, automobile electronics. It's tempting to say that if it saves one life we should do it, but on the other side of the ledger, if it saves one gallon of gasoline to run one ambulance to save one two lives, then maybe we shouldn't.
I recall reading a book authored by Richard Feynman where he recounted a party where he used that as a party trick. He had one of his guests lay an arm somewhere inside a book, and Feynman was able to smell which two pages the person lay his arm between.
So let's say it doesn't receive any special treatment (not like private ISPs don't get special treatment because they do). According to the libertarian conservative narrative there's no way a publicly run enterprise could possibly be competitive with the lean, efficient, absolutely perfect capitalist private sector. There's just no way that could possibly happen so why not let them?
Because if you were to try it then the municipality would have a vested interest in the success of the publicly run enterprise. The municipality would find it irresistible to refrain from putting their thumbs on the scale, especially if it means that failure of the publicly run enterprise would reflect negatively on the municipal government. If only one enterprise could go first, then the publicly run enterprise would get first choice. When measuring success, profits by the private sector would be counted as a negative. Costs of the publicly run enterprise wouldn't be counted because they are paid for by government. (Office space in city hall, for example.) The list is endless.
Let me translate. A bunch of whining millennial snowflakes want a say in getting out of working hard. They also think they're entitled to power even though they haven't worked hard enough to earn a management position. Millennial snowflakes are crybabies and don't deserve to be promoted.
Hmmm...could be. On the other hand it occurs to me that people who own stock have a say in running the company. Why is that? I'm certain that they pay more for stock or take less compensation in order to get partial control. Why couldn't people who work for a company want partial control for similar reasons? They think that if they have control then their investments (in time, in "roots", whatever) are better represented. You seem to be saying that the only reason an employee would want control is to work less hard, but I recall the company before last that I worked for. Management decided that instead of being a hardware and software company that they wanted to be a software-only company. I thought that was particularly poorly thought out, but I had no control.
By the way, you might want to get a narrower brush.
It's not necessary to know with 100% certainty. A lot of legislators who voted for the law can't possibly know what the intent of the writer was, but presumably they know with sufficient surety to vote for the law. It's not a huge stretch to conclude that people under the law can know enough to obey it, and so can the judge. Obviously, there are exceptions where the law is overly confusing, and thus cannot be obeyed, but that's not the proper conclusion to draw for the vast majority of laws.
I totally disagree that this is 'taking care' of their employees. It's blatant abuse, of both the employees themselves as well as tax-payer money that has to be spent on their employees on account of them not paying a livable wage or offering proper health care.
And yet, with all the other options available to them, people choose to work for Walmart. Why do you suppose that is? I think it must be because Walmart is the best place to work for compared to those others. Either those other places pay less wages, or offer fewer benefits, or have worse working conditions, or do something else that the employees find objectionable. And since it's not apparent what that something is from the articles you posted, I have to think that they aren't providing a fair account of Walmart's practices. It's like someone has an anti-Walmart agenda. I wonder who gains when people get angry at Walmart? Competitors? Politicians? Social leaders? Something to ponder.
"He can run that trending thing however the fucking company wants under current law."
Perhaps not. Suppose someone offers you a deal where you agree to read the advertisements he promotes, and in return you get to see the most popular stories from everyone in his group. Suppose you agree to that deal. Then, if you read the advertisements, but he only offers you the most popular liberal stories, then he's in breach of contract.
I'm not saying that's what happened. I'm just saying that it may be more than merely a case of freedom of speech on Facebook's part.
I just lost my job of ten years on the 15th of March. I also have two sons who are recent college graduates living with me who cannot get a job. None of us three are counted in the cited statistic because I was a new claim three weeks ago, and new college graduates aren't considered unemployed. If you read the linked article you'll see that continuing claims also went down. I'm a continuing claim, but my sons are not. So even though three of us are looking for jobs, none of us are considered unemployed, and only one-third of us is considered a continued unemployed. Needless to say, I'm not too impressed with the Obama recovery. At least my wife has a part-time job, enabling use to (barely) put a third son through college so he'll be able to take his turn being unable to find a job.
Unfortunately, my wife is working as a receptionist at a tax preparation office, and that's likely to end...tomorrow. As a part time worker, she's going to be ineligible for unemployment. That means that next week, with none of us five having a job, the new claims statistic won't reflect that. At least the statistics will look good.
If we want to be strict shouldn't the term "engineer" apply only to those people involved with the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of external-combustion steam-engines for use pulling large masses along doubled rails, and naval propulsion? I don't mind anyone calling themselves an engineer, so long as they don't defraud someone about their abilities for the purpose of selling them a bill of goods. And this from an engineer having two engineering degrees from major state universities.
Slashdot Mirror
Explain to me how creative works can even be encouraged to exist without copyright.
The best selling book of all time was authored before copyright was invented. Explain to me how that happened.
~Loyal
So what is your model?
I get my choice? I think I'll pick...Charlize Theron.
So we have creeping automation that is working its way up the social-economic ladder. This is happening.
Absent the loaded adjective...I can accept that. So stipulated. Let it show in the record.
The why of that fact is that the users of that automation find it profitable to eliminate the cost of employing people.
Yeah, you're focusing on one part of what has to be at least -- at least -- a four-part system. Automation and employing people both have costs. Those costs can be initial, repetitive, and exiting. Whenever the cost of one type of interchangeable economic input is more attractive to a producer than another then it benefits him to use the more attractive choice. That removes that choice, those resources, from other users, but releases the other choice for other producers or consumers.
Now it is pretty incontestable that if the trend continues - and it will - at some point, we will hit a unpleasant point where manufacturers cannot squeak more profit out of a system that has been made very lean, coupled with and overall economy in which most of the population is nothing more than a drain.
Yeah...no. It's not as incontestable as you're letting on. You're neglecting, among a myriad of other things, the fact that there are advancements in productivity, and the fact that preferences change. As an example of the former I offer the cyanide process for gold extraction, and as an example of the latter I offer the buggy whip.
So if we use the current model, there will be a need for a massive culling...[massive deletion]
Given that your premise is false, none of your conclusions follow.
This is a massively complicated issue. 19th century economics will not solve it. Our lizard brain is not going to solve it.
Well...you're not going to solve it.
~Loyal
It would take about three seconds for any human to come up with a workaround that could justify doing just about anything and still technically conform to the laws. Less than three seconds if you allow the zero'th law.
That wouldn't matter, because Asimov's robots don't obey the sixty-three words of the three laws. They obey the literally thousands of thousands of positronic pathways created for them in the factory. The sixty-three words are a sort of executive summary of what the three laws require, so creating a workaround would be unavailing to the robots.
~Loyal
The whole point of the Three Laws was to illustrate the holes in the concept of the Three Laws.
You couldn't be more wrong. The three laws grew out of a conversation with John Campbell where Asimov asserted that the endlessly repeating Frankenstein's monster-type robot stories wouldn't happen in the real world. Designers would place safeguards around robots just like they place safeguards around every other dangerous thing. I'm reminded of an anecdote regarding a new energy source that was presented to a college class. It had the unfortunate traits of being an odorless poisonous gas that also happened to be explosive. The class was allowed to vote, and they voted to prohibit the energy source. It turns out that the energy source had been used for home heating for decades. Among other safeguards, designers added odorants and automatic shut-off valves for when the pilot blew out. Campbell challenged him to describe robot safeguards, and then challenged him to write stories about them.
EVERY Azimov Robot story was designed to show the unintended consequences of the Three Laws....
Susan Calvin would slap you backhanded.
~Loyal
Helene Fritzon received a proposal which would create crimes of gross infringement under both copyright and trademark law, leading to sentences of up to six years in prison.
You can get a lot of political contributions from copyright holders; hardly any from murderers.
~Loyal
It isn't in society's interest to ensure that Damore has a job like it is for convicted felons. We often don't allow employers to ask convicts whether they've been convicted, because if the convicts can't find a job they may turn to stealing or murder for hire in order to support themselves. If Damore has to steal or murder to feed himself, then we can throw him in prison, and society is no worse off.
And it's not like embezzlers or murderers make for a threatening work environment. All co-workers and employers are as pleased as can be that they're supporting society's best interests. The most important thing is just for us to remain consistent.
~Loyal
We will reduce our total workforce to less than 50,000 people by the end of this year, from some 60,000 staff at the end of 2017.
That's outrageous! People really need to contact them and let them know what they think about this statement. It's not less than 50,000 people. It's fewer than 50,000 people.
~Loyal
First of all in socialism governments have no monopoly on invention
Socialism, not socialism governments. Socialism happens when governments control the means of production. I've found that on Wikipedia, before, and in more scholarly publications. I'm sure you could find it after a short search if you have more than a very minimum level of competence. Article I section 8 of the US Constitution grants to congress the power of securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; Congress has chosen to exercise that power through patents, copyrights, trade marks, service marks, and trade secrets. A patent is a monopoly right on the production of a good or service. Thus, monopoly is socialism.
you are an idiot.
Stupid is as stupid does.
Secondly, vitamins are not invented.
Legally, they are. If they weren't then congress would be violating the constitution when they granted monopolies to vitamin producers. The supreme court has heard cases on this and very similar products, and has been disinclined to rein congress in, therefore, under US law this vitamin is an invention.
Idiot.
You repeat yourself.
You seem to think vitamins only exist in forms of pills and people need to eat them to be "more healthy"
I can't imagine what I might have said to give you that impression.
you are mistaken.
If so then you would be able to show me where.
~Loyal
Socialism is an easy fix for cases like this.
Socialism is not an easy fix for cases like this. Socialism caused this case. Namely, it was caused by socialising the cost of inventions by a) granting a government-created monopoly to the inventors of this vitamin and b) creating a government bureaucracy with the power to test medicine for safety and efficacy,
In a socialist system this vitamin wouldn't even be available because it never would have been developed in the first place.
The parts of that claim that are not vague are false.
~Loyal
Darn! They'll never convict him now.
Which frankly if you haven't found work in over a year, your motivation to find work must be nearly zero.
I haven't found work in over a year, and my motivation to find work is far from zero. I have two college degrees in a STEM field, but was laid off March 15, 2016. I did find work for three week in January, but nothing other than that. I'm not counted in the unemployment figure since my unemployment insurance ran out over ten months ago. My wife also has a college degree. She works two days a week, six hours a day, so she doesn't bring in much money. (Well, except for last week, when they asked her not to come in, so she didn't bring in any money.) She, too, isn't counted in the unemployment figure. My oldest son finally got work two months ago. He has a college degree, but is working for barely more than minimum wage. Despite being greatly underemployed, he isn't counted in the unemployment figure. My middle son also has a college degree, but is working for barely more than minimum wage. He, too, isn't counted in the unemployment figure. His new wife just got a job. She starts work next month. She, too, isn't counted in the unemployment figure. My youngest son it attending college. He, too, isn't counted in the unemployment figure. So, amongst the six of us who aren't working or are working for far less money than our educations suggest we should be making, none of us are counted in the unemployment figure. I know how we could get 0% unemployment in this country. Just don't count anyone.
~Loyal
You're only counting the negatives. If you count only the negatives, anything looks bad. Just as if you count only the positives anything looks good. Counting only my weight losses, I've lost 150 pounds. I must be the most resolute health guru on the planet. Coal-fired heating provides power for hospitals, homes, industry, research. It frees up oil for plastics, detergents, medicines, paints, fertilizers, plastics, synthetic fibers, and synthetic rubber. It frees up natural gas for hydrogen, ammonia, fabrics, glass, steel, more plastics, and more paint. It frees up purified silicon (from photo-voltaic use) for computers, televisions, automobile electronics. It's tempting to say that if it saves one life we should do it, but on the other side of the ledger, if it saves one gallon of gasoline to run one ambulance to save one two lives, then maybe we shouldn't.
~Loyal
I recall reading a book authored by Richard Feynman where he recounted a party where he used that as a party trick. He had one of his guests lay an arm somewhere inside a book, and Feynman was able to smell which two pages the person lay his arm between.
~Loyal
It ran on an RCA 301 computer.
So let's say it doesn't receive any special treatment (not like private ISPs don't get special treatment because they do). According to the libertarian conservative narrative there's no way a publicly run enterprise could possibly be competitive with the lean, efficient, absolutely perfect capitalist private sector. There's just no way that could possibly happen so why not let them?
Because if you were to try it then the municipality would have a vested interest in the success of the publicly run enterprise. The municipality would find it irresistible to refrain from putting their thumbs on the scale, especially if it means that failure of the publicly run enterprise would reflect negatively on the municipal government. If only one enterprise could go first, then the publicly run enterprise would get first choice. When measuring success, profits by the private sector would be counted as a negative. Costs of the publicly run enterprise wouldn't be counted because they are paid for by government. (Office space in city hall, for example.) The list is endless.
Let me translate. A bunch of whining millennial snowflakes want a say in getting out of working hard. They also think they're entitled to power even though they haven't worked hard enough to earn a management position. Millennial snowflakes are crybabies and don't deserve to be promoted.
Hmmm...could be. On the other hand it occurs to me that people who own stock have a say in running the company. Why is that? I'm certain that they pay more for stock or take less compensation in order to get partial control. Why couldn't people who work for a company want partial control for similar reasons? They think that if they have control then their investments (in time, in "roots", whatever) are better represented. You seem to be saying that the only reason an employee would want control is to work less hard, but I recall the company before last that I worked for. Management decided that instead of being a hardware and software company that they wanted to be a software-only company. I thought that was particularly poorly thought out, but I had no control.
By the way, you might want to get a narrower brush.
~Loyal
It's not necessary to know with 100% certainty. A lot of legislators who voted for the law can't possibly know what the intent of the writer was, but presumably they know with sufficient surety to vote for the law. It's not a huge stretch to conclude that people under the law can know enough to obey it, and so can the judge. Obviously, there are exceptions where the law is overly confusing, and thus cannot be obeyed, but that's not the proper conclusion to draw for the vast majority of laws.
~Loyal
I totally disagree that this is 'taking care' of their employees. It's blatant abuse, of both the employees themselves as well as tax-payer money that has to be spent on their employees on account of them not paying a livable wage or offering proper health care.
And yet, with all the other options available to them, people choose to work for Walmart. Why do you suppose that is? I think it must be because Walmart is the best place to work for compared to those others. Either those other places pay less wages, or offer fewer benefits, or have worse working conditions, or do something else that the employees find objectionable. And since it's not apparent what that something is from the articles you posted, I have to think that they aren't providing a fair account of Walmart's practices. It's like someone has an anti-Walmart agenda. I wonder who gains when people get angry at Walmart? Competitors? Politicians? Social leaders? Something to ponder.
~Loyal
is there a way to make that pricing more fair?
Reduce copyright duration to two years and the "problem" will go away.
~Loyal
"He can run that trending thing however the fucking company wants under current law."
Perhaps not. Suppose someone offers you a deal where you agree to read the advertisements he promotes, and in return you get to see the most popular stories from everyone in his group. Suppose you agree to that deal. Then, if you read the advertisements, but he only offers you the most popular liberal stories, then he's in breach of contract.
I'm not saying that's what happened. I'm just saying that it may be more than merely a case of freedom of speech on Facebook's part.
~Loyal
I just lost my job of ten years on the 15th of March. I also have two sons who are recent college graduates living with me who cannot get a job. None of us three are counted in the cited statistic because I was a new claim three weeks ago, and new college graduates aren't considered unemployed. If you read the linked article you'll see that continuing claims also went down. I'm a continuing claim, but my sons are not. So even though three of us are looking for jobs, none of us are considered unemployed, and only one-third of us is considered a continued unemployed. Needless to say, I'm not too impressed with the Obama recovery. At least my wife has a part-time job, enabling use to (barely) put a third son through college so he'll be able to take his turn being unable to find a job.
Unfortunately, my wife is working as a receptionist at a tax preparation office, and that's likely to end...tomorrow. As a part time worker, she's going to be ineligible for unemployment. That means that next week, with none of us five having a job, the new claims statistic won't reflect that. At least the statistics will look good.
~Loyal
You cannot sue over damages that might statistically occur to unknown individuals.
You can if you make the laws.
~Loyal
Confirmation bias has me nodding along;
I'm convinced that confirmation bias strongly affects human reactions, and this is just the evidence I needed to prove it.
~Loyal
Answer from the perspective of a 60 year old with multiple cancers.
"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in." Greek Proverb
~Loyal
If we want to be strict shouldn't the term "engineer" apply only to those people involved with the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of external-combustion steam-engines for use pulling large masses along doubled rails, and naval propulsion? I don't mind anyone calling themselves an engineer, so long as they don't defraud someone about their abilities for the purpose of selling them a bill of goods. And this from an engineer having two engineering degrees from major state universities.
~Loyal