In the book, teleporters all check in with the homeworld at a set date to send back ore and to replenish their atmosphere, food and workforce stock. As there is no hyperspace communication or FTL travel, once the Psychlo world gets turned into a "radioactive sun", everyone just keeps checking in, one at a time, and blowing themselves up.
To clear up... Not every planet got turned into a sun. That happens only to the main planet which had that special breathing-gas of theirs which reacted violently to uranium. On other planets, only their central mining camps around the teleporting platforms explode - with all their remaining supplies of atmosphere and food. Which they can only get from their home planet.
You just have to read it early enough... Like when you're 11-14. Old enough to be interested in SciFi beyond simple space opera but not yet learned enough to be repelled by bad or pulpy writing. Though Hubbard sorta-kinda covered his ass there by claiming in-universe that the book was intentionally written that way.
E.g. On the inside cover of my library copy someone wrote "money is an idea backed with confidence". Someone found that information so novel and fascinating, they had to write it down. On the inside cover of the book they've read it from.
Just try imagining what could someone write on the inside of the DVD case of the movie.
Also, the book is full of some really fine pulpy action and adventure. And it even manages to make negotiations and CONTRACTS exciting. The movie literally put me to sleep first (and only) time I saw it. Plus, the book is not dumb enough to have them flying harriers and raiding Fort Knox and doing all other nonsense which was not in the book.
Later though... One might find the book even more fascinating, but in a different way. Like how much it echoes stories intentionally written to be a satire of an ultra-right pulp fairytale. All of it clearly without the author realizing how steeped in those ideas his writing was.
Though, entertainingly, PP is close to the mark - and then he goes on the whole "Christians are being persecuted" tangent which is pure nonsense.
But he got the opening line right:
We live in a world of empiricism, where the concepts of faith and religion are - if not outright mocked and denigrated - are under constant pressure.
Which again proves that the truth is subversive. Yes, we do live in a world of empiricism - because that's how the world is, whether we like it or not. And such world will always put concepts of faith and religion under pressure. Just like it puts everything else under pressure. It's only that PP finds the reality expressed in that sentence threatening.
I'll digress for a moment... I want to show a familiar example to point out something. Remember how in "Godfather 2", Fredo tells Michael's son, Anthony, about a "secret" for catching fish? How he'd always say a "Hail Mary" when throwing the line and he, out of all the kids, would catch the most fish. Then later, we see him still doing that just before he gets "taken out" by Michael's assassin, Neri. SPOILERS!
Now, that's a '70s movie, done by a Catholic. Not very "observant" as he puts it himself, but still very "religious". So, that is not "Fredo the idiot" - that is "Fredo the unloved child, becoming a traitor out of unrequited love and childlike innocence". And John Cazale pulled that off perfectly.
Today, that SAME character would be someone with mental issues. Someone who does not understand the world around him, with that story hinting not at his childlike innocence but at his childlike mental capacities.
That's the '70s. Showing that by then even for a religious Catholic director something like saying a prayer before every action that you feel is up to chance is something that only a child or someone as innocent as child might do. An adult doing that... That's someone who's a bit iffy. One way or the other. Cause Fredo sure as hell has issues. He's not an idiot... but he has emotional issues written all over him.
Compare that to Barry Pepper's Private Jackson in "Saving Private Ryan", praying for "true aim" and "victory in battle". Which feels completely in character AND not disparaging at all. It feels like something that a young man might do in the war, during 1940s. And nobody invented that prayer - he's quoting Psalms.
Which are basically a collection of ready-made prayers for various "troubles" one might find themselves in, and for saying "thanks god" for being delivered from them. There are like 150 specific ways to cry "HELP GOD!" and to say "Thanks god!" just there. Same thing with all those saints, protectors and patrons of this and that, and their corresponding amulets. Or with all those relics of various saints, apostles, pieces of "true cross" etc. Or with all the gods in Hinduism, or all the kami in Shintoism. For everything out there that may harm or benefit one's existence and/or circumstances - there is a prayer, an amulet, a saint, a kami, a god...
But none of them deal with empirically provable aspects of the thing they are supposed to be influencing. There is no "make sure that fire has flames" god or amulets - though there are dozens of fire-gods. Or a kami you could pray to "to make water wet". Though there is a water kami. Or an amulet with a saint whose job it was to make sure that apples are apples and not oranges. Though there is a saint of apple orchards - St. Charles Borromeo. There is even a "fear of mice" saint - St. Gertrude of Nivelles.
Because, when you DON'T LIVE IN AN EMPIRICAL WORLD, when you live instead in a "Demon Haunted World" - you need a protector, an amulet, a prayer for everything. Whatever it is you're not certain of, be it fish biting on a particular day or bullets hitting their target - just use the right amulet or prayer and shift odds in your favor. If
The "conclusions" of "abnormal behavior" were made from observations that kids would rather be at home playing instead of sitting in a class AND from the fact that young humans will seek sexual satisfaction but avoid rejection.
That sounds like something a ROBOT might find strange. Not a human being. Particularly not one who actually went through puberty at some point in their life.
PARIS, Oct. 24-Government officials, religious leaders and film directors condemned today an apparent arson attack against a Paris theater that was showing Martin Scorsese's film ''The Last Temptation of Christ.'' The fire Saturday night left 13 people hospitalized, 1 of them in serious condition.
... Before the film opened, the Archbishop of Paris, Jean-Marie Cardinal Lustiger, condemned it without having seen it. He said, ''One doesn't have the the right to shock the sensibilities of millions of people for whom Jesus is more important than their father or mother.''
After the fire, Cardinal Lustiger condemned those responsible for what the police suspect was arson. ''You don't behave as Christians but as enemies of Christ,'' the prelate said. ''From the Christian point of view, one doesn't defend Christ with arms. Christ himself forbade it.''
There have also been attacks against a new Claude Chabrol film, ''Une Affaire de Femmes,'' which is about a Frenchwoman who was executed for performing abortions. A viewer died of a heart attack after seeking to flee one theater after a teargas bomb was set off.
Even the "arguments" from the pulpit, both before and after, are the same. It's almost as if they are coming from the same Abrahamic sources and same cognitive delusions.
How 'bout Vietnamese? Russians? They simply HAVE to be commies. They all came from commie countries at the time and as such they all must still be commies. Oh... wait...
They left those countries cause they didn't like conditions there and clearly "being commie among other commies" wasn't their topmost priority.
Or it could be that you're talking out of your ass cause your head is overflowing with shit? Don't you worry, there's a solution for that too. Note how that link is about as relevant as yours? Actually... Maybe a bit more as you could put that on your head...
BTW... did you know that when you link vague, unrelated and loaded statements typed into google - that proves nothing? But it still makes you look like a dick?! No? Well... don't thank me yet. There's more. Like when you do that double quoting thing, it means that you are informed of and support the point of the asshole above doing the same linking to vague, unrelated and loaded statements and the rest of his dickery. Which results in most of those results "supporting his theory" being from racist blogs?
So, you're not only full of shit - you're a racist dick by association. Good on ya!
As for Netherlands... Well... for one, your underlying premise is bullshit. BTW, that's synonymous with "bald faced lying", FYI. So is quoting it, when you clearly show that you COULD check the factuality of those claims but... well... you know...
Anyway, that whole "Netherlands gun violence is high by European standards" thing - that's bullshit. If we compare gun homicides they are actually rather median and mode for western and northern Europe. Also, quite negligible and non issue. One guy could rack up twice those numbers in an afternoon. You wouldn't call that symptomatic now, would you?
Anyway... on to stupid things as Reagan might say. Sweden - annual firearm homicides total - 2010: 18; Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People - 2010: 0.19, Norway: 2; 0.04, Finland: 14; 0.26, Denmark: 11; 0.20, Netherlands: 33; 0.20, Belgium: 36; 0.33, France: 127; 0.20, Germany: 51; 0.06, UK: 33; 0.05.
Feel free to compare later data too, where there is any across all the countries for the given year. And where there are no outliers like that thing in Norway in 2011, where a lone crazed religious crusader might fudge the statistics of the entire country.
So... Now that we have those 33 deaths by "shooting"... Onus probandi dictates that you prove your bullshit claims that you've taken up to defend, that:
- ALL those deaths are caused by Moroccan immigrants, i.e. "Them Moroccan gangbangers" as you like to call them, - further, once you prove that ALL those murders are committed by Moroccan immigrants, that ALL those murderers were also Muslims. BTW, it's spelled with an I... just so you know... Boy you sure are learning shit today.
Meanwhile, back in reality, back in 2009. there were 341528 people of Moroccan origin in Netherlands. Meaning that, even if you do dig up those facts, at best you get to say you're not... how you put it... bald face liar.
But your racial and religious prejudice will still shine like a beacon of rectalism. Cause even if you do manage to scrounge up the data supporting your position, and ALL those murders really WERE committed by Moroccan Muslims - that's still 0.0096% of Moroccan population in Netherlands.
Or do you also argue that EVERYONE in USA is a child molester? After all... 2012 numbers of reported cases of child se
You've both missed the point of his friend's "issue" with "why a woman would want a truck". You actually managed to hit the nail of his friend's logic right on the head but failed to connect the dots.
Why would a woman want a truck? Women don't need to "carry big heavy things" - that's what they have men for. With their trucks.
I guess it's hard for him to imagine that a woman would have a need to carry large and/or heavy items?
That's EXACTLY right. Because women have men to do such chores for them OR they have "no such need" and thus do not "own any such vehicle".
It's the part of that whole door-opening, heavy-things-lifting, unscrewing jars, walking on the side of the side-walk facing the street etc. etc. etc. life-long training for men - instigated by the Ladies of 19th century aristocracy whose ideal in life was to marry-up or mistress-up as high as possible while keeping the lower-statured competition down with expensive fashion and ridiculous rules such as which fork to use with which food. Times and (some) fashions slowly changed but silly rules became culture, good behavior and common sense. In past generations' defense, how could they have known about trucks and similar marvels of the modern age?
How many "gender differences affect the experiences" papers can we find that have been rejected because all the authors are male?
And would we even hear about those on account of such "research" being highly corrected for political correctness?
I mean... I know a guy with a masters in "gender studies" whose ideas about women boil down to "they get ahead by giving head" (exact words were "by sleeping ahead"). At this very moment his Facebook page has the following joke: Domestic violence is when your wife won't give you any and won't let you have any from others. He is also rather successful in art and culture work, popular with women, once had a suspended sentence for breaking the other guy's limb and has been known to publish on his Facebook page "funny" songs about his real life friends "playing with children".
Nobody tells a paper with only men to get a woman co-author just to make sure gender bias has been properly vetted. Though it may not be a bad idea...
You mean nobody's pushing for more women in science, thus trying to correct for gender bias science-wide instead of doing it on paper-by-paper basis? Really? Hmm... Must be because women are actually NOT underrepresented in hard sciences and there is nothing to correct for.
Hmm... Something seems fishy about that line of reasoning... can't quite put my finger on it though.
Papers should be evaluated *without* knowing who wrote them.
"Blind" evaluation: Scientist A has a racial bias and his paper shows it. Scientist A's paper doesn't get published due to the bias shown, he is informed of it, so he either "corrects" the paper and submits it again under another title OR he pays close attention that it does not SHOW in the future.
He doesn't exclude the bias. He can't. It's inherent to his view of the world. He just "corrects" for it using politically correct terms and similar tools. Say... writing "impoverished urban youths tend to be criminally inclined" instead of "blacks are thieves".
BUT... as bias is now not obvious, and reviewer doesn't know that it is a paper from a racially biased scientist - paper gets published, along with all future papers by said scientist, raising his credibility as a scientist. Who can now even quote his earlier work and further build on his racial theories, or allow others to quote his "research" and build their own racial theories based on it.
And the best part is - now he knows that he should HIDE his bias in order to move forward.
Non-blinded evaluation: Scientist A has a racial bias and his paper shows it. Scientist A's paper doesn't get published due to the bias shown, he is informed of it, so he either "corrects" the paper and submits it again under another title OR he pays close attention that it does not SHOW in the future.
He doesn't exclude the bias. He can't. It's inherent to his view of the world. He just "corrects" for it using politically correct terms and similar tools. Say... writing "impoverished urban youths tend to be criminally inclined" instead of "blacks are thieves".
BUT... as he is now known for racial bias, his papers get additionally scrutinized regarding such bias. And hopefully, they get rejected on that account.
And since we can associate people with other people and places, his colleagues and his university ALSO get additional scrutiny on account of being closely related to a known racist.
âoeThe word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me.â
I am guessing here but I fear two things are limiting this picker to what it is now.
1 - the cost of the thing makes it worth ONLY IF you have a guy doing the sorting while it picks, thus eliminating off-site sorting jobs.
2 - It needs daylight to tell ripe (red) strawberries from unripe (green) ones, leaving the unripe ones for later picking.
1 is an issue of scale and upfront costs, so money fixes that BUT at the cost of favoring large monopolies. 2 is a technical issue. Which may be easily solvable - but with the next generation of he picker.
Like you said. A handful of changes may be needed.
..jobs that are themselves increasingly under threat from automation.:)
Sure... but I was just illustrating the main direction the whole thing is going in. It is a very skippable step in the process. Just like landline phones in Africa.
Or like the way schools no longer teach calligraphy and penmanship and kids skip all of that 1970s and 1980s and 1990s and early 2000s computer stuff and rush straight into NOW. Stuff changes, people adapt to new stuff or adapt new stuff to themselves.
Ergo, former pickers are now packers. Do they dream a dream of a life of a packer for their children? I doubt that. They are probably not sending their kids to "packer schools" no more than they are sending them to work in the fields like THEY were forced to back in the '50s and '60s.
When compared with "real sugar", sucrose in other words, it doesn't make much difference. It's 55% fructose instead of 50%.
HFCS 55 - one used in sodas, is 55 parts fructose, 42 parts glucose. Sucrose - plain sugar, is 50 parts fructose and 50 parts glucose.
Our brains only measure the glucose intake, cause that is the sugar we start burning the moment it hits the bloodstream. We even absorb it directly through the oral cavity - hence oral glucose gel for diabetics. When we hit optimal glucose the brain tells the body it had enough.
So, if optimal glucose is (some) 100 parts, that means that using sucrose, one would take in 100 parts of fructose and 100 parts of glucose. To get to the same level of glucose satiety (those same 100 parts) with HFCS 55, one would take in 131 parts of fructose for every 100 parts of glucose.
What is the final workplace for those math students?
Around these parts (Bosnia) it tends to be teaching. Which is once again traditionally a female-centric profession. Half my math teachers in elementary school, high school, at university were female. I have a cousin (female) who is a math teacher.
On the other hand... Having started electro-engineering, quitting that for work, taking up CS later... In both those cases female to male ratio was about... 1 to 15-20.
Yeah, it basically conflates parts of the picking, sorting and packing process into a single job.
Though, it lacks one aspect of the old process, clearly visible there in your video. Old system allowed for quick and dirty picking during daytime, while sorting, packing and transport could be done as a separate process, 24/7. That automated picker dictates that all work must be done in daytime if one is aiming for optimum efficiency.
Cause nobody's gonna do any sorting at night in the field with all those insects rushing at the light and all that nectar in the air.
Ah yes... Famous last words of those with no arguments apart from repeating that black is white. And then you go "If people only ate more blah-blah-blah"... which is AGAIN just ignoratio elenchi. Babbling about irrelevant points cause you have no leg to stand on.
You came to "people should eat more nuts", in a topic about automated strawberry pickers, over a fallacious argument about wages, which you have related to pizza. That large thing on the horizon you no longer see? That was the topic. You are out at sea, lost and confused.
And in conclusion all you offer is "Nah-ah. You is wrong. WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!!!"
BTW... how can you know if my argument is "fallacial [sic] at best" if you don't read until the end? Maybe I completely change my mind by the end?
First off, strawberries aren't food? Since when? And pizza and Big Macs are?
I already explained above why strawberries are not food but an edible luxury item, AND gave you a HIGHLY comparable example of almonds. Both need to be farmed, both are actually really expensive to produce, both use up a lot of water and land...
Only difference being that you can scale down the price of strawberries easier by adding cheap labor while more pickers won't make almonds cheaper because a tree is not a vine, and because the cost of picking is practically non-existent for almonds while cost of planting vines is not comparable to a cost of planting and nursing trees.
And the fact that you are refusing to acknowledge the difference between a MEAL like pizza or burger off of which you can live and work just fine, as many do - and a luxury food item which is basically water and a small amount of sugar and fiber...
That makes you either delusional, dishonest or both. And your "argument" is either nonsense or a strawman. Well... it's actually both, but most strawman are.
What's next? Comparing chocolate to bacon? How about cake and water? They should all do you just fine - as none of those are produced in the same way nor do they have similar nutritional values nor do they cost the same to produce OR purchase. I KNOW! How about comparing apples and oranges?
Whatever difficulties there are in picking strawberries are irrelevant, as the production of every food substance has it's own set of challenges. Pizza dough has to be used when it's thawed and can't be refrozen. Same with hamburger. Cheese needs to be refrigerated. French fries can only be up to 2 hours old and then need to be pitched. Buns have to be thrown out once they get stale, and so on. None of which are germane to the discussion of wages.
This whole part is just one big ignoratio elenchi, a false analogy and a strawman where you try to present different actions, all with different costs as if they are one and the same. Hint: IT'S WHAT YOU ALREADY DID IN THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT.
You do realize that you compared laboring in the fields with "buns have to be thrown out if stale"? And then you dot your list of nonsense with a non sequitur. What? Are you going down a list of fallacies, checking off one by one?
YOUR ANALOGY OF FAST FOOD INDUSTRY WITH FIELD LABOR IS FALSE - WHICH DESTROYS THE BASIS OF YOUR WAGE ARGUMENT.
You can't compare fast food that gets produced year round, 9 to 5, in malls and restaurants - to sunrise to sundown labor in the fields, during a very short period when strawberries are ripe. Nor do you have to plant a pizza and wait for it to grow, water it, keep it safe from pests for months... Nor can you hire 500 workers to make that pizza faster - you know... the way more pickers pick the pickings pretty post-haste.
if strawberries are so difficult to pick, and so delicate, one would think you'd need skilled labor to do it correctly and efficiently.
Digging a ditch is difficult. Does that require skilled labor? How about lifting heavy things?
Nice obtuseness though. Really. Or are you now making fun of people working in the fields? "If it were so hard to keep your back bended the whole day, there'd be a school for that. Har-har-har! Ow! My carpal tunnel!"
Not a single "point" you make makes any sense, as you are talking out of your ass. The story is about people moving on to BETTER jobs. Not necessarily better paid jobs. Wage is not a single measure of a job. Try working in a field for a day and compare that to a similarly or worse paid work done inside. Try working on a farm and compare that to a similarly or worse paid work in a city.
Also, the story is about a specific crop. Not just any crop. And certainly not about pizza. And it is about a technological solution for planting and harvesting that crop NOT because that would be cheaper. There
Just to make it clear - we ARE just shooting the breeze here.
To be clear, we're not talking about a completely equal income, or anything so communistic.
It doesn't have to be.
We eliminate cost of living by paying people's basic needs (food, water, clothing, living quarters, heating, hygiene, health, communication) - those things we pay for instantly become free. Correct the list anyway you want - things that we end up providing ALL of the people with, will no longer be marketable (as everyone can have them for free) AND if we're employing robots to provide those things that scales up until the cost is no longer existent.
First batch of "free stuff" might carry a cost. Second will be cheaper. Third even more... Until it disappears somewhere far behind the decimal point - because robots. And not only free... The fact that we can save both items and money - we won't be able to give them away.
Aaaannd... There goes economy. If we give EVERYONE free money AND we replace them with robots that are effective enough to provide the raw material or the finished products everyone needs - supply and demand kills the economy.
A fad diet where enough people stop eating bread for a few days would suddenly cause huge stockpiling of wheat. If we are still using money for that resource, i.e. we still run it like an economy and not a government provided service, market dies at that point. And brings down with it anything related to it. Stuff like money and government and stuff like that.
Cause we're talking about BILLIONS of people. We can't have a partial basic income only in some countries and not in others - unless we want to promote inequality while ruining people's lives on both sides of the in-equation. Cause instead of equality we would create a miserable privileged class, and a slave class. Like what Qatar and Kuwait have done. And they don't even have a full basic income per se... just a crapload of free stuff and privileges.
Robots aren't going to completely replace skilled human labor, at least not until they can replace us completely
Robots don't have to completely replace humans as long as they replace ENOUGH humans.
If at that point we are still trying to pretend that it's an economy and not a government subsidy - economy dies. Make it an outright government subsidy... it either ends up as Qatar or as USSR. Neither of which is a good thing. One doubles (or balloons it up even more) the population of the country by importing personal slaves - other makes everyone stand in bread lines. Both would destroy a country from inside. Bread lines probably less - it's easier on one's morale to be hungry than to be a slave owner.
Which brings us to the crux of the problem - we can't have both the basic income AND robots making everything at the same time. It is one or the other.
Both of those at the same time kill economy, money, moral values...
It's just that people who previously were able to work and get by on jobs that did not require particular knowledge or talent are going to be increasingly scarce,
Actually... There might be a surge in people actively looking FOR that kind of work.
We ARE still the same old hunter gatherers. Our bodies like the outdoors and physical work. Our brains love it when we work with our hands.
Make it no longer an issue of economic status and you might just end up with highly educated garbage collectors, short order cooks, cleaners, gardeners, janitors, couriers... Heck... You got that now to some extent with people organizing themselves to clean up parks or riverbeds. And let's not even go into all those hobbies.
We NEED to have stuff to do. We get sick if just sit around on our asses the whole day. Or we start doing stupid and dangerous things. Idle hands and all that jazz...
And as we run up that population ladder we'll need even more stuff to do just to keep us from doing stupid things like killing each other.
Slashdot Mirror
In the book, teleporters all check in with the homeworld at a set date to send back ore and to replenish their atmosphere, food and workforce stock.
As there is no hyperspace communication or FTL travel, once the Psychlo world gets turned into a "radioactive sun", everyone just keeps checking in, one at a time, and blowing themselves up.
To clear up...
Not every planet got turned into a sun. That happens only to the main planet which had that special breathing-gas of theirs which reacted violently to uranium.
On other planets, only their central mining camps around the teleporting platforms explode - with all their remaining supplies of atmosphere and food.
Which they can only get from their home planet.
Go to Red Letter Media (of the Mr. Plinkett Star Wars prequels reviews fame) and check out their Best of The Worst episodes.
Or just check out the Things review.
Battlefield Earth is Oscar-worthy compared to some schlock out there.
You just have to read it early enough... Like when you're 11-14.
Old enough to be interested in SciFi beyond simple space opera but not yet learned enough to be repelled by bad or pulpy writing. Though Hubbard sorta-kinda covered his ass there by claiming in-universe that the book was intentionally written that way.
E.g. On the inside cover of my library copy someone wrote "money is an idea backed with confidence".
Someone found that information so novel and fascinating, they had to write it down.
On the inside cover of the book they've read it from.
Just try imagining what could someone write on the inside of the DVD case of the movie.
Also, the book is full of some really fine pulpy action and adventure.
And it even manages to make negotiations and CONTRACTS exciting.
The movie literally put me to sleep first (and only) time I saw it.
Plus, the book is not dumb enough to have them flying harriers and raiding Fort Knox and doing all other nonsense which was not in the book.
Later though... One might find the book even more fascinating, but in a different way.
Like how much it echoes stories intentionally written to be a satire of an ultra-right pulp fairytale.
All of it clearly without the author realizing how steeped in those ideas his writing was.
Though, entertainingly, PP is close to the mark - and then he goes on the whole "Christians are being persecuted" tangent which is pure nonsense.
But he got the opening line right:
We live in a world of empiricism, where the concepts of faith and religion are - if not outright mocked and denigrated - are under constant pressure.
Which again proves that the truth is subversive.
Yes, we do live in a world of empiricism - because that's how the world is, whether we like it or not.
And such world will always put concepts of faith and religion under pressure. Just like it puts everything else under pressure.
It's only that PP finds the reality expressed in that sentence threatening.
I'll digress for a moment... I want to show a familiar example to point out something.
Remember how in "Godfather 2", Fredo tells Michael's son, Anthony, about a "secret" for catching fish?
How he'd always say a "Hail Mary" when throwing the line and he, out of all the kids, would catch the most fish.
Then later, we see him still doing that just before he gets "taken out" by Michael's assassin, Neri. SPOILERS!
Now, that's a '70s movie, done by a Catholic. Not very "observant" as he puts it himself, but still very "religious".
So, that is not "Fredo the idiot" - that is "Fredo the unloved child, becoming a traitor out of unrequited love and childlike innocence". And John Cazale pulled that off perfectly.
Today, that SAME character would be someone with mental issues.
Someone who does not understand the world around him, with that story hinting not at his childlike innocence but at his childlike mental capacities.
That's the '70s.
Showing that by then even for a religious Catholic director something like saying a prayer before every action that you feel is up to chance is something that only a child or someone as innocent as child might do.
An adult doing that... That's someone who's a bit iffy. One way or the other.
Cause Fredo sure as hell has issues. He's not an idiot... but he has emotional issues written all over him.
Compare that to Barry Pepper's Private Jackson in "Saving Private Ryan", praying for "true aim" and "victory in battle".
Which feels completely in character AND not disparaging at all. It feels like something that a young man might do in the war, during 1940s.
And nobody invented that prayer - he's quoting Psalms.
Which are basically a collection of ready-made prayers for various "troubles" one might find themselves in, and for saying "thanks god" for being delivered from them.
There are like 150 specific ways to cry "HELP GOD!" and to say "Thanks god!" just there.
Same thing with all those saints, protectors and patrons of this and that, and their corresponding amulets.
Or with all those relics of various saints, apostles, pieces of "true cross" etc.
Or with all the gods in Hinduism, or all the kami in Shintoism.
For everything out there that may harm or benefit one's existence and/or circumstances - there is a prayer, an amulet, a saint, a kami, a god...
But none of them deal with empirically provable aspects of the thing they are supposed to be influencing.
There is no "make sure that fire has flames" god or amulets - though there are dozens of fire-gods.
Or a kami you could pray to "to make water wet". Though there is a water kami.
Or an amulet with a saint whose job it was to make sure that apples are apples and not oranges. Though there is a saint of apple orchards - St. Charles Borromeo.
There is even a "fear of mice" saint - St. Gertrude of Nivelles.
Because, when you DON'T LIVE IN AN EMPIRICAL WORLD, when you live instead in a "Demon Haunted World" - you need a protector, an amulet, a prayer for everything.
Whatever it is you're not certain of, be it fish biting on a particular day or bullets hitting their target - just use the right amulet or prayer and shift odds in your favor.
If
The "conclusions" of "abnormal behavior" were made from observations that kids would rather be at home playing instead of sitting in a class AND from the fact that young humans will seek sexual satisfaction but avoid rejection.
That sounds like something a ROBOT might find strange.
Not a human being. Particularly not one who actually went through puberty at some point in their life.
In short... like most psychology studies out there, this too is most probably bullshit.
"Is giving rides to
others somehow requires a different skill set than
driving yourself?"
None at all.
That's why I always argue that school busses should be replaced with kids just hitchiking to school and back.
Same goes for all other cases wher one needs to be driven somewhere safely and on time.
Any random stranger with a car will do.
Try using that logic to reason out the cases of those who "want to be martyrs" armed with pressure cookers full of ball bearings and explosives.
I cannot recall if there were dead though.
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/10...
PARIS, Oct. 24-Government officials, religious leaders and film directors condemned today an apparent arson attack against a Paris theater that was showing Martin Scorsese's film ''The Last Temptation of Christ.''
The fire Saturday night left 13 people hospitalized, 1 of them in serious condition.
...
Before the film opened, the Archbishop of Paris, Jean-Marie Cardinal Lustiger, condemned it without having seen it. He said, ''One doesn't have the the right to shock the sensibilities of millions of people for whom Jesus is more important than their father or mother.''
After the fire, Cardinal Lustiger condemned those responsible for what the police suspect was arson. ''You don't behave as Christians but as enemies of Christ,'' the prelate said. ''From the Christian point of view, one doesn't defend Christ with arms. Christ himself forbade it.''
There have also been attacks against a new Claude Chabrol film, ''Une Affaire de Femmes,'' which is about a Frenchwoman who was executed for performing abortions. A viewer died of a heart attack after seeking to flee one theater after a teargas bomb was set off.
Even the "arguments" from the pulpit, both before and after, are the same.
It's almost as if they are coming from the same Abrahamic sources and same cognitive delusions.
How 'bout Vietnamese?
Russians? They simply HAVE to be commies.
They all came from commie countries at the time and as such they all must still be commies.
Oh... wait...
They left those countries cause they didn't like conditions there and clearly "being commie among other commies" wasn't their topmost priority.
Or it could be that you're talking out of your ass cause your head is overflowing with shit?
Don't you worry, there's a solution for that too.
Note how that link is about as relevant as yours? Actually... Maybe a bit more as you could put that on your head...
BTW... did you know that when you link vague, unrelated and loaded statements typed into google - that proves nothing?
But it still makes you look like a dick?! No? Well... don't thank me yet. There's more.
Like when you do that double quoting thing, it means that you are informed of and support the point of the asshole above doing the same linking to vague, unrelated and loaded statements and the rest of his dickery.
Which results in most of those results "supporting his theory" being from racist blogs?
So, you're not only full of shit - you're a racist dick by association. Good on ya!
As for Netherlands... Well... for one, your underlying premise is bullshit.
BTW, that's synonymous with "bald faced lying", FYI. So is quoting it, when you clearly show that you COULD check the factuality of those claims but... well... you know...
Anyway, that whole "Netherlands gun violence is high by European standards" thing - that's bullshit.
If we compare gun homicides they are actually rather median and mode for western and northern Europe.
Also, quite negligible and non issue. One guy could rack up twice those numbers in an afternoon.
You wouldn't call that symptomatic now, would you?
Anyway... on to stupid things as Reagan might say.
Sweden - annual firearm homicides total - 2010: 18; Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People - 2010: 0.19,
Norway: 2; 0.04,
Finland: 14; 0.26,
Denmark: 11; 0.20,
Netherlands: 33; 0.20,
Belgium: 36; 0.33,
France: 127; 0.20,
Germany: 51; 0.06,
UK: 33; 0.05.
Feel free to compare later data too, where there is any across all the countries for the given year.
And where there are no outliers like that thing in Norway in 2011, where a lone crazed religious crusader might fudge the statistics of the entire country.
So... Now that we have those 33 deaths by "shooting"...
Onus probandi dictates that you prove your bullshit claims that you've taken up to defend, that:
- ALL those deaths are caused by Moroccan immigrants, i.e. "Them Moroccan gangbangers" as you like to call them,
- further, once you prove that ALL those murders are committed by Moroccan immigrants, that ALL those murderers were also Muslims.
BTW, it's spelled with an I... just so you know... Boy you sure are learning shit today.
Meanwhile, back in reality, back in 2009. there were 341528 people of Moroccan origin in Netherlands.
Meaning that, even if you do dig up those facts, at best you get to say you're not... how you put it... bald face liar.
But your racial and religious prejudice will still shine like a beacon of rectalism.
Cause even if you do manage to scrounge up the data supporting your position, and ALL those murders really WERE committed by Moroccan Muslims - that's still 0.0096% of Moroccan population in Netherlands.
Or do you also argue that EVERYONE in USA is a child molester?
After all... 2012 numbers of reported cases of child se
Wowsers!
You've both missed the point of his friend's "issue" with "why a woman would want a truck".
You actually managed to hit the nail of his friend's logic right on the head but failed to connect the dots.
Why would a woman want a truck?
Women don't need to "carry big heavy things" - that's what they have men for. With their trucks.
I guess it's hard for him to imagine that a woman would have a need to carry large and/or heavy items?
That's EXACTLY right.
Because women have men to do such chores for them OR they have "no such need" and thus do not "own any such vehicle".
It's the part of that whole door-opening, heavy-things-lifting, unscrewing jars, walking on the side of the side-walk facing the street etc. etc. etc. life-long training for men - instigated by the Ladies of 19th century aristocracy whose ideal in life was to marry-up or mistress-up as high as possible while keeping the lower-statured competition down with expensive fashion and ridiculous rules such as which fork to use with which food.
Times and (some) fashions slowly changed but silly rules became culture, good behavior and common sense.
In past generations' defense, how could they have known about trucks and similar marvels of the modern age?
How many "gender differences affect the experiences" papers can we find that have been rejected because all the authors are male?
And would we even hear about those on account of such "research" being highly corrected for political correctness?
I mean...
I know a guy with a masters in "gender studies" whose ideas about women boil down to "they get ahead by giving head" (exact words were "by sleeping ahead").
At this very moment his Facebook page has the following joke: Domestic violence is when your wife won't give you any and won't let you have any from others.
He is also rather successful in art and culture work, popular with women, once had a suspended sentence for breaking the other guy's limb and has been known to publish on his Facebook page "funny" songs about his real life friends "playing with children".
Nobody tells a paper with only men to get a woman co-author just to make sure gender bias has been properly vetted. Though it may not be a bad idea...
You mean nobody's pushing for more women in science, thus trying to correct for gender bias science-wide instead of doing it on paper-by-paper basis? Really?
Hmm... Must be because women are actually NOT underrepresented in hard sciences and there is nothing to correct for.
Hmm... Something seems fishy about that line of reasoning... can't quite put my finger on it though.
Papers should be evaluated *without* knowing who wrote them.
"Blind" evaluation:
Scientist A has a racial bias and his paper shows it.
Scientist A's paper doesn't get published due to the bias shown, he is informed of it, so he either "corrects" the paper and submits it again under another title OR he pays close attention that it does not SHOW in the future.
He doesn't exclude the bias. He can't. It's inherent to his view of the world.
He just "corrects" for it using politically correct terms and similar tools.
Say... writing "impoverished urban youths tend to be criminally inclined" instead of "blacks are thieves".
BUT... as bias is now not obvious, and reviewer doesn't know that it is a paper from a racially biased scientist - paper gets published, along with all future papers by said scientist, raising his credibility as a scientist.
Who can now even quote his earlier work and further build on his racial theories, or allow others to quote his "research" and build their own racial theories based on it.
And the best part is - now he knows that he should HIDE his bias in order to move forward.
Non-blinded evaluation:
Scientist A has a racial bias and his paper shows it.
Scientist A's paper doesn't get published due to the bias shown, he is informed of it, so he either "corrects" the paper and submits it again under another title OR he pays close attention that it does not SHOW in the future.
He doesn't exclude the bias. He can't. It's inherent to his view of the world.
He just "corrects" for it using politically correct terms and similar tools.
Say... writing "impoverished urban youths tend to be criminally inclined" instead of "blacks are thieves".
BUT... as he is now known for racial bias, his papers get additionally scrutinized regarding such bias.
And hopefully, they get rejected on that account.
And since we can associate people with other people and places, his colleagues and his university ALSO get additional scrutiny on account of being closely related to a known racist.
Some of my favorite people ever are 20th-centurists! Plus I was born in that century!
Yes, but you are forming your opinion on the matter from Gawker Media. The chances of you having an informed opinion are exactly 0.
No.
There IS a chance of forming an informed opinion that anything posted under that banner is usually mostly crap.
Chances for unbiased, non-sensationalistic, click-bait, flame-war-inciting troll-posts from Gaw*retch*ker Media ARE very close to zero though.
âoeThe word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me.â
Some Einstein guy said that about a year before he died, back in 1954.
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2...
I am guessing here but I fear two things are limiting this picker to what it is now.
1 - the cost of the thing makes it worth ONLY IF you have a guy doing the sorting while it picks, thus eliminating off-site sorting jobs.
2 - It needs daylight to tell ripe (red) strawberries from unripe (green) ones, leaving the unripe ones for later picking.
1 is an issue of scale and upfront costs, so money fixes that BUT at the cost of favoring large monopolies.
2 is a technical issue. Which may be easily solvable - but with the next generation of he picker.
Like you said. A handful of changes may be needed.
Sure... but I was just illustrating the main direction the whole thing is going in.
It is a very skippable step in the process. Just like landline phones in Africa.
Or like the way schools no longer teach calligraphy and penmanship and kids skip all of that 1970s and 1980s and 1990s and early 2000s computer stuff and rush straight into NOW.
Stuff changes, people adapt to new stuff or adapt new stuff to themselves.
Ergo, former pickers are now packers. Do they dream a dream of a life of a packer for their children?
I doubt that.
They are probably not sending their kids to "packer schools" no more than they are sending them to work in the fields like THEY were forced to back in the '50s and '60s.
When compared with "real sugar", sucrose in other words, it doesn't make much difference. It's 55% fructose instead of 50%.
HFCS 55 - one used in sodas, is 55 parts fructose, 42 parts glucose.
Sucrose - plain sugar, is 50 parts fructose and 50 parts glucose.
Our brains only measure the glucose intake, cause that is the sugar we start burning the moment it hits the bloodstream. We even absorb it directly through the oral cavity - hence oral glucose gel for diabetics.
When we hit optimal glucose the brain tells the body it had enough.
So, if optimal glucose is (some) 100 parts, that means that using sucrose, one would take in 100 parts of fructose and 100 parts of glucose.
To get to the same level of glucose satiety (those same 100 parts) with HFCS 55, one would take in 131 parts of fructose for every 100 parts of glucose.
Then all that fructose, as Al Green puts it, gets taken to the liver.
What is the final workplace for those math students?
Around these parts (Bosnia) it tends to be teaching. Which is once again traditionally a female-centric profession.
Half my math teachers in elementary school, high school, at university were female.
I have a cousin (female) who is a math teacher.
On the other hand...
Having started electro-engineering, quitting that for work, taking up CS later...
In both those cases female to male ratio was about... 1 to 15-20.
Yeah, it basically conflates parts of the picking, sorting and packing process into a single job.
Though, it lacks one aspect of the old process, clearly visible there in your video.
Old system allowed for quick and dirty picking during daytime, while sorting, packing and transport could be done as a separate process, 24/7.
That automated picker dictates that all work must be done in daytime if one is aiming for optimum efficiency.
Cause nobody's gonna do any sorting at night in the field with all those insects rushing at the light and all that nectar in the air.
Yeah, I stopped after the first paragraph
Ah yes... Famous last words of those with no arguments apart from repeating that black is white.
And then you go "If people only ate more blah-blah-blah"... which is AGAIN just ignoratio elenchi.
Babbling about irrelevant points cause you have no leg to stand on.
You came to "people should eat more nuts", in a topic about automated strawberry pickers, over a fallacious argument about wages, which you have related to pizza.
That large thing on the horizon you no longer see? That was the topic. You are out at sea, lost and confused.
And in conclusion all you offer is "Nah-ah. You is wrong. WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!!!"
BTW... how can you know if my argument is "fallacial [sic] at best" if you don't read until the end?
Maybe I completely change my mind by the end?
Bah... give my best to the sharks.
First off, strawberries aren't food? Since when? And pizza and Big Macs are?
I already explained above why strawberries are not food but an edible luxury item, AND gave you a HIGHLY comparable example of almonds.
Both need to be farmed, both are actually really expensive to produce, both use up a lot of water and land...
Only difference being that you can scale down the price of strawberries easier by adding cheap labor while more pickers won't make almonds cheaper because a tree is not a vine, and because the cost of picking is practically non-existent for almonds while cost of planting vines is not comparable to a cost of planting and nursing trees.
And the fact that you are refusing to acknowledge the difference between a MEAL like pizza or burger off of which you can live and work just fine, as many do - and a luxury food item which is basically water and a small amount of sugar and fiber...
That makes you either delusional, dishonest or both. And your "argument" is either nonsense or a strawman. Well... it's actually both, but most strawman are.
What's next? Comparing chocolate to bacon? How about cake and water?
They should all do you just fine - as none of those are produced in the same way nor do they have similar nutritional values nor do they cost the same to produce OR purchase.
I KNOW! How about comparing apples and oranges?
Whatever difficulties there are in picking strawberries are irrelevant, as the production of every food substance has it's own set of challenges. Pizza dough has to be used when it's thawed and can't be refrozen. Same with hamburger. Cheese needs to be refrigerated. French fries can only be up to 2 hours old and then need to be pitched. Buns have to be thrown out once they get stale, and so on. None of which are germane to the discussion of wages.
This whole part is just one big ignoratio elenchi, a false analogy and a strawman where you try to present different actions, all with different costs as if they are one and the same.
Hint: IT'S WHAT YOU ALREADY DID IN THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT.
You do realize that you compared laboring in the fields with "buns have to be thrown out if stale"?
And then you dot your list of nonsense with a non sequitur.
What? Are you going down a list of fallacies, checking off one by one?
YOUR ANALOGY OF FAST FOOD INDUSTRY WITH FIELD LABOR IS FALSE - WHICH DESTROYS THE BASIS OF YOUR WAGE ARGUMENT.
You can't compare fast food that gets produced year round, 9 to 5, in malls and restaurants - to sunrise to sundown labor in the fields, during a very short period when strawberries are ripe.
Nor do you have to plant a pizza and wait for it to grow, water it, keep it safe from pests for months...
Nor can you hire 500 workers to make that pizza faster - you know... the way more pickers pick the pickings pretty post-haste.
if strawberries are so difficult to pick, and so delicate, one would think you'd need skilled labor to do it correctly and efficiently.
Digging a ditch is difficult. Does that require skilled labor?
How about lifting heavy things?
Nice obtuseness though. Really.
Or are you now making fun of people working in the fields?
"If it were so hard to keep your back bended the whole day, there'd be a school for that. Har-har-har! Ow! My carpal tunnel!"
Not a single "point" you make makes any sense, as you are talking out of your ass.
The story is about people moving on to BETTER jobs. Not necessarily better paid jobs. Wage is not a single measure of a job.
Try working in a field for a day and compare that to a similarly or worse paid work done inside.
Try working on a farm and compare that to a similarly or worse paid work in a city.
Also, the story is about a specific crop. Not just any crop. And certainly not about pizza.
And it is about a technological solution for planting and harvesting that crop NOT because that would be cheaper.
There
Just to make it clear - we ARE just shooting the breeze here.
To be clear, we're not talking about a completely equal income, or anything so communistic.
It doesn't have to be.
We eliminate cost of living by paying people's basic needs (food, water, clothing, living quarters, heating, hygiene, health, communication) - those things we pay for instantly become free.
Correct the list anyway you want - things that we end up providing ALL of the people with, will no longer be marketable (as everyone can have them for free) AND if we're employing robots to provide those things that scales up until the cost is no longer existent.
First batch of "free stuff" might carry a cost. Second will be cheaper. Third even more...
Until it disappears somewhere far behind the decimal point - because robots.
And not only free... The fact that we can save both items and money - we won't be able to give them away.
Aaaannd... There goes economy.
If we give EVERYONE free money AND we replace them with robots that are effective enough to provide the raw material or the finished products everyone needs - supply and demand kills the economy.
A fad diet where enough people stop eating bread for a few days would suddenly cause huge stockpiling of wheat.
If we are still using money for that resource, i.e. we still run it like an economy and not a government provided service, market dies at that point.
And brings down with it anything related to it. Stuff like money and government and stuff like that.
Cause we're talking about BILLIONS of people.
We can't have a partial basic income only in some countries and not in others - unless we want to promote inequality while ruining people's lives on both sides of the in-equation.
Cause instead of equality we would create a miserable privileged class, and a slave class. Like what Qatar and Kuwait have done.
And they don't even have a full basic income per se... just a crapload of free stuff and privileges.
Robots aren't going to completely replace skilled human labor, at least not until they can replace us completely
Robots don't have to completely replace humans as long as they replace ENOUGH humans.
If at that point we are still trying to pretend that it's an economy and not a government subsidy - economy dies.
Make it an outright government subsidy... it either ends up as Qatar or as USSR. Neither of which is a good thing.
One doubles (or balloons it up even more) the population of the country by importing personal slaves - other makes everyone stand in bread lines.
Both would destroy a country from inside. Bread lines probably less - it's easier on one's morale to be hungry than to be a slave owner.
Which brings us to the crux of the problem - we can't have both the basic income AND robots making everything at the same time.
It is one or the other.
Both of those at the same time kill economy, money, moral values...
It's just that people who previously were able to work and get by on jobs that did not require particular knowledge or talent are going to be increasingly scarce,
Actually... There might be a surge in people actively looking FOR that kind of work.
We ARE still the same old hunter gatherers.
Our bodies like the outdoors and physical work. Our brains love it when we work with our hands.
Make it no longer an issue of economic status and you might just end up with highly educated garbage collectors, short order cooks, cleaners, gardeners, janitors, couriers...
Heck... You got that now to some extent with people organizing themselves to clean up parks or riverbeds.
And let's not even go into all those hobbies.
We NEED to have stuff to do.
We get sick if just sit around on our asses the whole day. Or we start doing stupid and dangerous things.
Idle hands and all that jazz...
And as we run up that population ladder we'll need even more stuff to do just to keep us from doing stupid things like killing each other.
everything you've said is idiotic and irrelevant.
Said the guy whose "argument" is nothing more than argumentum ad lapidem.
What do you do for an encore?
Roll on the floor crying "NO! NO! NO! YOU ARE WRONG!" while tearing your hair out?