lose his job because of a new requirement that his current position now needed a degree
That makes no sense. If they already had employees who they knew were doing a good job, then what is the point of such a requirement (or at least firing existing workers who they know know what they are doing)?
The purpose of college is learning things that you actually need for your future job. Being forced to memorize (and then quickly forget) irrelevant things is just inefficient. If someone fails to take courses that they need because they didn't do any research themselves, then too bad for them.
How can I trust you with a computer language when you can't even master the one you grew up with?
Because it's not the same thing. I see people who evaluate others based on somewhat irrelevant qualities or skills as moronic.
Yes, communicating with others is important. However, just because someone makes a few mistakes or doesn't know the language in perfect detail, that does not make them a "moron." It certainly doesn't mean that they do not understand anything else in great detail.
Wikileaks may have inspired people in the Middle East to riot and overthrow their governments
This is a bad thing? Corrupt governments need to be overthrown (or at least someone needs to make an attempt). That said, their actions are not the fault of WIkileaks, but their own. Merely revealing the facts does not put the blame on them. It's a shame people are dying, but it is not the fault of Wikileaks. If they put someone worse in charge, then that is again their own fault. They merely act on the information given to them, and if they do it foolishly, that is not Wikileaks' fault.
The point is exactly that 200 years ago people were saying this same shit about machine automation.
The point is that machinery wasn't nearly as advanced as it is in the scenario we are speaking of. The point is that there were other forms of somewhat trivial work to do at the time. As I said previously, even if a few new industries are created, the work will likely have to be advanced enough so that this hypothetical machinery won't be able to do it. We probably won't need many people to do the work (which means that most people who lost their jobs to these machines won't be able to get another job elsewhere). Then there's the issue of the education required. And what of AI (that may be far into the future, but that's not the point)? What then?
Yes, but I responded to your comment that stated that there will always be work for humans to do. This is not necessarily true (not useful work, anyway).
because there is always things that people can do, that machines do not.
Once again, you're not thinking of the scenario. What happens when that is not true any longer? No, what happens when this is still true to some extent but there's not nearly enough job openings to replace the millions upon millions of people who lost their jobs? There may very well be a few jobs that the machines can't do (or can't do well), but I can almost guarantee that there won't be enough if such a thing happens.
Immediately after meeting someone you absolutely have classified them.
As an "unknown," perhaps.
Period. End of discussion. This is always true assuming you are human. Period.
All you did was state your point and then claim it was true. What if there existed a person who didn't do that? This is my point. You speak in absolutes but likely cannot prove your statements absolutely.
Yes, and my point was that machines will likely become advanced enough to replace any (or most) workers of any new industries that people can conceive.
We're talking about a scenario where machines become advanced enough that they are able to replace almost all workers. If that happens, people won't necessarily just be able to go out and find another job somewhere in another industry. Most probably won't be able to do that (either due to the knowledge required or due to a lack of jobs). The amount of jobs lost will be far more than the amount of jobs that are opened up. And, theoretically, if technology keeps progressing, even the more advanced workers would eventually be unnecessary.
It hasn't worked yet. The solution isn't to give up and say "this will never work," however. The solution is to keep trying and to keep pressing the issue and telling others about it.
There were times in days past when being an asshole would get you killed.
And? The fact that things could be worse doesn't change the fact that the current situation needs to be fixed. That's a ridiculous way of thinking. Any situation could be worse and seem trivial compared to a much worse situation.
The phrase "them's fighting words" once really did have some meaning.
To imbeciles who would attack others for having a different opinion than themselves, at least. Initiating violence for such a trivial thing is idiotic.
Words DO have consequences behind them
I suggest that people toughen up. They should not get angry or sad because of mere words. That does them no good. In reality, you can ignore an insult.
The only thing that I mentioned in my comment about myself would be the fact that I would not react idiotically to such a trivial matter. I was merely addressing your generalization that everyone is alike in this way. It is possible for that to be false. Labeling it as "human nature" and then reaching the conclusion that everyone in existence is like that is merely an excuse.
You must walk through the poorest ghettos with confidence!
Living in a "ghetto" doesn't speak much about someone's character. In any case, I'd need further information or actions to be able to identify their character.
If EA, Activision, THQ, MS, Nintendo, Sony, Ubisoft, Square-Enix, Zenimax and Take Two are all, in one way or another on board, your options for non-online 'enabled' games shrink pretty fast.
I don't care for most of the games those companies produce.
but most really good games come in 3-5x that, just for development
Throwing money at a game won't make it good (not that you said it would). Besides, 'good' is subjective. I really don't like many newer games.
Honestly, there's no need to beg big publishers for loads of money to make a game. It's simply not required.
The more people go on about 'I'll just pirate it rather than deal with broken DRM" the more the DRM is going to shift to be less DRM and more buying online "services" which give you access to the content you actually want.
And there will likely be people who will just stop buying the garbage. The amount may be small, but it will be there. Ultimately, it is completely the fault of the developers for implementing DRM or using idiotic online gaming schemes.
Enough people trolling or generally behaving disruptively can quickly reduce a forum's signal to noise ratio below anything useful.
The forums? I was talking about in-game. Truthfully, if the game doesn't have an ignore feature, then one really should be added. People shouldn't be getting banned for frivolous things such as saying things that offend someone.
Also, people shouldn't be getting banned even on the forums for that as long as they're not spamming nonsense. If someone included an insult into an on topic post or reacted to the situation with an insult, they shouldn't be banned. People really do need to toughen up.
It is human nature. There is practically endless studies validating this point exactly. The old cliche, you only get one chance to make a first impression, has been endlessly validated.
This may apply to a majority of the population, but it does not apply to everyone. There may be immense amounts of social conditioning in society, but not everyone is so easily influenced by it.
Like it or not, within seconds of meeting someone for the first time, consciously and unconsciously you have read the book by its cover. Period.
Except if that didn't happen.
So honestly, until societal norms change, if in fact they ever do in this regard, its by far to your own advantage to not discuss things like comic books and D&D to people you just met.
It's not to your advantage if you wish for such people to not be a part of your life.
Slashdot Mirror
lose his job because of a new requirement that his current position now needed a degree
That makes no sense. If they already had employees who they knew were doing a good job, then what is the point of such a requirement (or at least firing existing workers who they know know what they are doing)?
This is the purpose of college.
The purpose of college is learning things that you actually need for your future job. Being forced to memorize (and then quickly forget) irrelevant things is just inefficient. If someone fails to take courses that they need because they didn't do any research themselves, then too bad for them.
How can I trust you with a computer language when you can't even master the one you grew up with?
Because it's not the same thing. I see people who evaluate others based on somewhat irrelevant qualities or skills as moronic.
Yes, communicating with others is important. However, just because someone makes a few mistakes or doesn't know the language in perfect detail, that does not make them a "moron." It certainly doesn't mean that they do not understand anything else in great detail.
Wikileaks may have inspired people in the Middle East to riot and overthrow their governments
This is a bad thing? Corrupt governments need to be overthrown (or at least someone needs to make an attempt). That said, their actions are not the fault of WIkileaks, but their own. Merely revealing the facts does not put the blame on them. It's a shame people are dying, but it is not the fault of Wikileaks. If they put someone worse in charge, then that is again their own fault. They merely act on the information given to them, and if they do it foolishly, that is not Wikileaks' fault.
The point is exactly that 200 years ago people were saying this same shit about machine automation.
The point is that machinery wasn't nearly as advanced as it is in the scenario we are speaking of. The point is that there were other forms of somewhat trivial work to do at the time. As I said previously, even if a few new industries are created, the work will likely have to be advanced enough so that this hypothetical machinery won't be able to do it. We probably won't need many people to do the work (which means that most people who lost their jobs to these machines won't be able to get another job elsewhere). Then there's the issue of the education required. And what of AI (that may be far into the future, but that's not the point)? What then?
Yes, but I responded to your comment that stated that there will always be work for humans to do. This is not necessarily true (not useful work, anyway).
My personal feelings are that Wikilieaks and similar vigilante mechanisms have done much more good than harm
What harm did Wikileaks do so far?
resources are not infinite
No, but some are ridiculously abundant.
because energy is not infinite
You don't necessarily need infinite energy.
because there is always things that people can do, that machines do not.
Once again, you're not thinking of the scenario. What happens when that is not true any longer? No, what happens when this is still true to some extent but there's not nearly enough job openings to replace the millions upon millions of people who lost their jobs? There may very well be a few jobs that the machines can't do (or can't do well), but I can almost guarantee that there won't be enough if such a thing happens.
Immediately after meeting someone you absolutely have classified them.
As an "unknown," perhaps.
Period. End of discussion. This is always true assuming you are human. Period.
All you did was state your point and then claim it was true. What if there existed a person who didn't do that? This is my point. You speak in absolutes but likely cannot prove your statements absolutely.
Reality says otherwise? Then can you prove with 100% accuracy that this does and always will apply to every person in existence?
Yes, and my point was that machines will likely become advanced enough to replace any (or most) workers of any new industries that people can conceive.
What would those 95% of people do?
We're talking about a scenario where machines become advanced enough that they are able to replace almost all workers. If that happens, people won't necessarily just be able to go out and find another job somewhere in another industry. Most probably won't be able to do that (either due to the knowledge required or due to a lack of jobs). The amount of jobs lost will be far more than the amount of jobs that are opened up. And, theoretically, if technology keeps progressing, even the more advanced workers would eventually be unnecessary.
Maybe. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't keeping trying until you win.
because the rich will prefer personal service over robots
They'll prefer whatever is the most efficient and saves them money (probably). That is what makes sense.
I don't think we'll see that much accelerating unemployment
We will if machines start being able to do jobs which have many, many workers. We'll lose far too many jobs and gain few from that.
In any case, unless you haven't noticed all kinds of manual labor and production industry was the first to be automated.
And many lost jobs. Fortunately, however, there was more options at the time.
Communism sounds nice on paper but doesn't work in the real world.
Or at least the ones that had been tried in the past.
It hasn't worked yet. The solution isn't to give up and say "this will never work," however. The solution is to keep trying and to keep pressing the issue and telling others about it.
How about not voting for either and instead voting for a third party?
There were times in days past when being an asshole would get you killed.
And? The fact that things could be worse doesn't change the fact that the current situation needs to be fixed. That's a ridiculous way of thinking. Any situation could be worse and seem trivial compared to a much worse situation.
The phrase "them's fighting words" once really did have some meaning.
To imbeciles who would attack others for having a different opinion than themselves, at least. Initiating violence for such a trivial thing is idiotic.
Words DO have consequences behind them
I suggest that people toughen up. They should not get angry or sad because of mere words. That does them no good. In reality, you can ignore an insult.
The only thing that I mentioned in my comment about myself would be the fact that I would not react idiotically to such a trivial matter. I was merely addressing your generalization that everyone is alike in this way. It is possible for that to be false. Labeling it as "human nature" and then reaching the conclusion that everyone in existence is like that is merely an excuse.
You must walk through the poorest ghettos with confidence!
Living in a "ghetto" doesn't speak much about someone's character. In any case, I'd need further information or actions to be able to identify their character.
If EA, Activision, THQ, MS, Nintendo, Sony, Ubisoft, Square-Enix, Zenimax and Take Two are all, in one way or another on board, your options for non-online 'enabled' games shrink pretty fast.
I don't care for most of the games those companies produce.
but most really good games come in 3-5x that, just for development
Throwing money at a game won't make it good (not that you said it would). Besides, 'good' is subjective. I really don't like many newer games.
Honestly, there's no need to beg big publishers for loads of money to make a game. It's simply not required.
The more people go on about 'I'll just pirate it rather than deal with broken DRM" the more the DRM is going to shift to be less DRM and more buying online "services" which give you access to the content you actually want.
And there will likely be people who will just stop buying the garbage. The amount may be small, but it will be there. Ultimately, it is completely the fault of the developers for implementing DRM or using idiotic online gaming schemes.
Enough people trolling or generally behaving disruptively can quickly reduce a forum's signal to noise ratio below anything useful.
The forums? I was talking about in-game. Truthfully, if the game doesn't have an ignore feature, then one really should be added. People shouldn't be getting banned for frivolous things such as saying things that offend someone.
Also, people shouldn't be getting banned even on the forums for that as long as they're not spamming nonsense. If someone included an insult into an on topic post or reacted to the situation with an insult, they shouldn't be banned. People really do need to toughen up.
And, even if I did, would that warrant someone making such an absolute generalization? I never mentioned myself.
Yeah I'm real sure you don't judge anyone anywhere.
I try to find out more about the person before classifying them (which is what we are speaking of).
Guess what bozo, you have the same knee-jerk reactions to things other people do.
What was the point of the series of questions if you were just going to fill in the answers for him?
Unless you are an alien robot
Or someone who investigates deeper before reaching such idiotic and hasty conclusions.
It is human nature. There is practically endless studies validating this point exactly. The old cliche, you only get one chance to make a first impression, has been endlessly validated.
This may apply to a majority of the population, but it does not apply to everyone. There may be immense amounts of social conditioning in society, but not everyone is so easily influenced by it.
Like it or not, within seconds of meeting someone for the first time, consciously and unconsciously you have read the book by its cover. Period.
Except if that didn't happen.
So honestly, until societal norms change, if in fact they ever do in this regard, its by far to your own advantage to not discuss things like comic books and D&D to people you just met.
It's not to your advantage if you wish for such people to not be a part of your life.
my first reaction is still: "Hopeless Nerd!"
Really? My first reaction would be, "okay."
It's human nature.
Speak for yourself.