It depends on what other types of technology exist alongside those technologies that have automated everything.
For instance, what if programmable nano-bots are a reality 200 years from now. nano-bots that can work at an atomic level. Literally turn dirt into gold, or build you a house, a car, space ship, etc.. they are self-repairing, self-creating, etc..
Then the only thing of value will be raw material. Labor will be meaningless.
Many States in the US that have chosen to increase minimum wage to ~10USD, which is above average, reported no job losses, and actually an increase in economic activity. As far as I know, there are no studies that show raising minimum wage decreases unemployment. In fact, it is the opposite:
You might see jobs shift around. Like a small retail shop might cut down from 2 workers to 1 worker. But that 1 worker was probably hired by a restaurant, because the restaurant has found they have a lot more business. That restaurant has a lot more business because there are now a lot more workers with a bit more disposable income to spend on take out food.
I should note, that I realize the article is all about the possibility of automation to save labor costs.
The researchers considered a time frame of 20 years, and they measured whether such jobs could be computerized, not whether these jobs will be computerized. The latter involves assumptions about economic feasibility and social acceptance that go beyond mere technology.
My point is that most recent evidence shows that states that raised minimum wage, lowered unemployment and increased economic activity.
Towns that recently raised minimum wages above national averages report an increase in business and a lowering of unemployment. When consumers are paid more, they spend more. When workers get paid more, they are more loyal, turn over decreases, and business efficiency increases. See Costco.
Just because a notion "seems right" in your mind, doesn't make it so. Try to find evidence that "it is a sure thing that raising the minimum wage will cause more jobs to be automated" before you state it as fact.
I just did more research. I cannot find any credible articles that describe the IPCC as emphasizing the worst outcomes. Except one: The Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2010/07/bias_and_ipcc_report . All the other sites I found were very obviously biased politically so I ignored those articles.
In fact, the credible news articles were split between no mention of IPCC highlighting the negatives (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-the-ipcc-need-to-change/) , or, more importantly, saying the exact opposite: the IPCC is being too conservative http://www.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2012/12/ipcc-climate-predictions .
I googled for: IPCC biased or not? , and scanned down the URL names quickly for a few pages. It is pretty obvious that IPCC bias is being shouted from the rooftops by all sorts of extreme blogs, but not from more serious publications. That, for me, means that that opinion is based in politics and ideology, not in fact.
I've posted on both sides of this issue... out of curiosity.
Why wouldn't a system work where the only money involved be the customer giving money to an ISP? Netflix pays Cogent, Cogent is under obligation to be able to output as many packets as Netflix is willing to pay for. I pay Comcast, Comcast is under obligation to deliver to me as many packets as I pay for.
Is a large part of my ISP bill being subsidized by transit fees?
Playing devil's advocate here: your monthly ISP-A bill pays for packets you request and send on that ISP-A's network. ISPs cannot control what happens outside their network. If Netflix was down, you wouldn't call Comcast and say "you guaranteed me access to the internet, netflix is on the internet, fix it!!". Likewise, if tomorrow Netflix suddenly required 200Mb to even work in standard def, it would be unreasonable to ask Comcast to suddenly meet that demand. It would take time to build up the network.
Now Netflix happens to host their service on another ISP-B. Say ISP-A's network is able to handle X units of traffic. But in the last year, ISP-B has been trying to push 2X units of traffic into ISP-A. Who's responsibility is it to pay for the new infrastructure required to handle 2X? Historically, most ISPs have had pretty equal traffic sharing. So peering arrangements were made that said "since are in/out traffic is equal with you, we both agree not to charge each other".
All valid points. However, you've got to admit that the hunt itself is fun. The stalking, slow movements, feeling like a predator. That is part of hunting. And for some hunters, that is the main motivation. The meat is secondary.
"most hunters try to avoid causing the animals to suffer."
Well, except for the killing part. I understand what you mean (quick death). But it is death whose main purpose was just a game to a sport hunter. A death whose main purpose was to give someone a thrill leading up to it.
*I used to hunt a variety of things, but became less interested in it over time.
Anyways, as for drones, I don't mind so much that it allows hunters to find game
But it would also allow hunters to selectively pick out trophy game. I would guess that the older, wiser, stronger herd leaders would be quickly picked off each season. That might seriously mess up the entire natural selection/survival of the fittest mechanism and leave a herd much weaker to predators over time. Not to mention mess up the breeding and social mechanisms of a herd. Every year the head male is killed...
I also wonder if artificially bypassing an animal's natural defenses (smell, sight, etc.) would eventually lead to a weaker herd overall. If we bypass survival of the fittest, and can take out all the older, wiser, big antler game using drones, we essentially are cutting the best traits out of that population and messing up natural selection.
There are mountains of such information out there, if you just but look.
Just reading this slashdot thread a few days later gave me links that counter everything you've linked. Several times disproving the "hasn't warmed in the last decade" for example.
In terms of models, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP
Since the internet contains a pro and a con side to just about everything (that has become politicized), one of us is picking the more accurate set of info from the sea of info.
It has been done dozens and dozens of times. Google Scholar has lots of them you can read. And your scenarios are not representative of what most of the reports on cost/benefit analysis actually study. For example:
Scenario 4: Public subsidies for oil/coal are slowly phased out over the next 10 years, and given to renewable research and production of renewable energy sources. Incentives are slowly ramped up over the next 20 years in various forms to 1) upgrade the electric grid 2) put more and more solar panels on houses. Begin moderate requirements that new houses have solar panels 3) etc..
Scenario 5: http://www.ted.com/talks/amory_lovins_on_winning_the_oil_endgame Slowly weening us off oil by 2050 with little to no economic impact.
The approach of the IPCC is to take the worst scenario that hasn't been conclusively rejected by the scientific community..which is why we you see it being presented with judgement words, like "darkest yet."
The goal of the IPCC is to present ranges of possibles changes, complete with error bars (probabilities, etc...). "Darkest yet" is how a newspaper decided to describe the latest IPCC report, which had worse/larger ranges.
I recall an article that said that advertisers have found that women respond to beautiful women models in ads as well as male models in ads. In other words, advertisers, TV show makers, etc.. know that a beautiful female model/actress is just as important for the female consumer as it is for the male consumer in terms of sales / eye balls.
While ordinarily clearing such things out of a given game is, on the surface, a laudable goal, there's one great big problem: There is no objective definition and delineation of terms like "mysogyny", "racism", or "homophobia".
There are huge swaths of societal behavior that isn't black and white. I see this complaint often on computer/engineering/math oriented sites: "If you can't describe it with an absolute equation then it is too messy to deal with.".
That is why we have judges, juries, and laws that say things like "A reasonable person would do X". Someone has to judge what is "reasonable" in the context of a situation at some point.
The world is messy and full of subjective parts of society. That doesn't mean we can't attempt to manage the messy parts.
Models predicted that if the warming were coming from a greenhouse effect, that inner layers of our atmosphere would be warmer than outer layers. However, if the warming was coming from increased solar energy, the outer layers would be warmer. The former was found to be true through satellite measurement. That is a really simplified version of a prediction. Google for more if you want.
It seems to me that we don't really have any good physical analogies for some of the ways that information is accessed on the web now. Some google searches can lead you to documents that site owners believed were private. And those site owners may have even had wording and legalese letting visitors know what is OK and not OK. But if you search for "index of" you might reach web server directories, browse around and reach those documents, and never know it was not authorized by the site owner.
Is searching for "index of" really much different than trying different URL combinations? Look, google even provides a list of URL parameters to use when embedding youtube: https://developers.google.com/youtube/player_parameters.
I know as a developer that I'll often guess at URL parameters when trying to accomplish projects. (For instance, for a long time a segment of this user community, http://www.jasig.org/uportal , was trying to figure out how to open a portlet channel in full screen mode using a URL.)
We really need some new specific laws to handle some of these subtle situations. One condition, which may be part of law already if I recall correctly, is intent. Did the person manipulate a ULR with the intent to reach material that they knew was not allowed? That is way different than google searching for 'index of' and just browsing around.
Imprisonment has always had many purposes: Justice for the victim, deterrent for future criminals, punishment for the criminal in question, possibility of reforming the criminal, etc..
Pesticide isn't persistent throughout the growing period. It is applied once or twice a season, and depending on which chemical was used, is gone in a few days. So resistance to pesticide is going to take much longer.
I have about 10 different java versions installed on my windows 7 computer at work. When I want to use one particular version of java I run a script to set JAVA_HOME, PATH, etc.. to the appropriate java. Ditto if I'm working on Solaris, Linux, or any other system.
I'm not exactly sure how this could be: "Java is my main language & I end up using it for almost everything" without knowing how to handle multiple java versions in windows.
I do think it would be nice (if possible) to install 32bit and 64bit and have the exe determine which jvm to use.
In terms of UAC, why aren't you launching java.exe as administrator and bypassing the uac headaches..or simply turning UAC off?
Slashdot Mirror
It depends on what other types of technology exist alongside those technologies that have automated everything.
For instance, what if programmable nano-bots are a reality 200 years from now. nano-bots that can work at an atomic level. Literally turn dirt into gold, or build you a house, a car, space ship, etc.. they are self-repairing, self-creating, etc..
Then the only thing of value will be raw material. Labor will be meaningless.
I use the self-checkout because it is always way faster than standing in line.
Many States in the US that have chosen to increase minimum wage to ~10USD, which is above average, reported no job losses, and actually an increase in economic activity. As far as I know, there are no studies that show raising minimum wage decreases unemployment. In fact, it is the opposite:
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/raising_minimum_wage_increases_quality_of_life_not_unemployment_20130810
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Stefan-Karlsson/2012/0214/Does-higher-minimum-wage-increase-unemployment
http://consumerist.com/2010/11/01/study-higher-minimum-wage-doesnt-increase-unemployment/
You might see jobs shift around. Like a small retail shop might cut down from 2 workers to 1 worker. But that 1 worker was probably hired by a restaurant, because the restaurant has found they have a lot more business. That restaurant has a lot more business because there are now a lot more workers with a bit more disposable income to spend on take out food.
I should note, that I realize the article is all about the possibility of automation to save labor costs.
The researchers considered a time frame of 20 years, and they measured whether such jobs could be computerized, not whether these jobs will be computerized. The latter involves assumptions about economic feasibility and social acceptance that go beyond mere technology.
My point is that most recent evidence shows that states that raised minimum wage, lowered unemployment and increased economic activity.
One thing's for sure...
No. It isn't sure.
Towns that recently raised minimum wages above national averages report an increase in business and a lowering of unemployment. When consumers are paid more, they spend more. When workers get paid more, they are more loyal, turn over decreases, and business efficiency increases. See Costco.
Just because a notion "seems right" in your mind, doesn't make it so. Try to find evidence that "it is a sure thing that raising the minimum wage will cause more jobs to be automated" before you state it as fact.
I just did more research. I cannot find any credible articles that describe the IPCC as emphasizing the worst outcomes. Except one: The Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2010/07/bias_and_ipcc_report . All the other sites I found were very obviously biased politically so I ignored those articles.
In fact, the credible news articles were split between no mention of IPCC highlighting the negatives (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-the-ipcc-need-to-change/) , or, more importantly, saying the exact opposite: the IPCC is being too conservative http://www.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2012/12/ipcc-climate-predictions .
I googled for: IPCC biased or not? , and scanned down the URL names quickly for a few pages. It is pretty obvious that IPCC bias is being shouted from the rooftops by all sorts of extreme blogs, but not from more serious publications. That, for me, means that that opinion is based in politics and ideology, not in fact.
I've posted on both sides of this issue... out of curiosity.
Why wouldn't a system work where the only money involved be the customer giving money to an ISP? Netflix pays Cogent, Cogent is under obligation to be able to output as many packets as Netflix is willing to pay for. I pay Comcast, Comcast is under obligation to deliver to me as many packets as I pay for.
Is a large part of my ISP bill being subsidized by transit fees?
Playing devil's advocate here: your monthly ISP-A bill pays for packets you request and send on that ISP-A's network. ISPs cannot control what happens outside their network. If Netflix was down, you wouldn't call Comcast and say "you guaranteed me access to the internet, netflix is on the internet, fix it!!". Likewise, if tomorrow Netflix suddenly required 200Mb to even work in standard def, it would be unreasonable to ask Comcast to suddenly meet that demand. It would take time to build up the network.
Now Netflix happens to host their service on another ISP-B. Say ISP-A's network is able to handle X units of traffic. But in the last year, ISP-B has been trying to push 2X units of traffic into ISP-A. Who's responsibility is it to pay for the new infrastructure required to handle 2X? Historically, most ISPs have had pretty equal traffic sharing. So peering arrangements were made that said "since are in/out traffic is equal with you, we both agree not to charge each other".
YEEHAW!
All valid points. However, you've got to admit that the hunt itself is fun. The stalking, slow movements, feeling like a predator. That is part of hunting. And for some hunters, that is the main motivation. The meat is secondary.
"most hunters try to avoid causing the animals to suffer."
Well, except for the killing part. I understand what you mean (quick death). But it is death whose main purpose was just a game to a sport hunter. A death whose main purpose was to give someone a thrill leading up to it.
*I used to hunt a variety of things, but became less interested in it over time.
Anyways, as for drones, I don't mind so much that it allows hunters to find game
But it would also allow hunters to selectively pick out trophy game. I would guess that the older, wiser, stronger herd leaders would be quickly picked off each season. That might seriously mess up the entire natural selection/survival of the fittest mechanism and leave a herd much weaker to predators over time. Not to mention mess up the breeding and social mechanisms of a herd. Every year the head male is killed...
I also wonder if artificially bypassing an animal's natural defenses (smell, sight, etc.) would eventually lead to a weaker herd overall. If we bypass survival of the fittest, and can take out all the older, wiser, big antler game using drones, we essentially are cutting the best traits out of that population and messing up natural selection.
Using planes to spot game is already illegal in Alaska (not sporting). Pretty sure they just extended the same philosophy to drones.
There are mountains of such information out there, if you just but look.
Just reading this slashdot thread a few days later gave me links that counter everything you've linked. Several times disproving the "hasn't warmed in the last decade" for example.
In terms of models, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP
Since the internet contains a pro and a con side to just about everything (that has become politicized), one of us is picking the more accurate set of info from the sea of info.
I guess time will tell.
It has been done dozens and dozens of times. Google Scholar has lots of them you can read. And your scenarios are not representative of what most of the reports on cost/benefit analysis actually study. For example:
Scenario 4: Public subsidies for oil/coal are slowly phased out over the next 10 years, and given to renewable research and production of renewable energy sources. Incentives are slowly ramped up over the next 20 years in various forms to 1) upgrade the electric grid 2) put more and more solar panels on houses. Begin moderate requirements that new houses have solar panels 3) etc..
Scenario 5: http://www.ted.com/talks/amory_lovins_on_winning_the_oil_endgame Slowly weening us off oil by 2050 with little to no economic impact.
The approach of the IPCC is to take the worst scenario that hasn't been conclusively rejected by the scientific community..which is why we you see it being presented with judgement words, like "darkest yet."
The goal of the IPCC is to present ranges of possibles changes, complete with error bars (probabilities, etc...). "Darkest yet" is how a newspaper decided to describe the latest IPCC report, which had worse/larger ranges.
I recall an article that said that advertisers have found that women respond to beautiful women models in ads as well as male models in ads. In other words, advertisers, TV show makers, etc.. know that a beautiful female model/actress is just as important for the female consumer as it is for the male consumer in terms of sales / eye balls.
While ordinarily clearing such things out of a given game is, on the surface, a laudable goal, there's one great big problem: There is no objective definition and delineation of terms like "mysogyny", "racism", or "homophobia".
There are huge swaths of societal behavior that isn't black and white. I see this complaint often on computer/engineering/math oriented sites: "If you can't describe it with an absolute equation then it is too messy to deal with.".
That is why we have judges, juries, and laws that say things like "A reasonable person would do X". Someone has to judge what is "reasonable" in the context of a situation at some point.
The world is messy and full of subjective parts of society. That doesn't mean we can't attempt to manage the messy parts.
Models predicted that if the warming were coming from a greenhouse effect, that inner layers of our atmosphere would be warmer than outer layers. However, if the warming was coming from increased solar energy, the outer layers would be warmer. The former was found to be true through satellite measurement. That is a really simplified version of a prediction. Google for more if you want.
It seems to me that we don't really have any good physical analogies for some of the ways that information is accessed on the web now. Some google searches can lead you to documents that site owners believed were private. And those site owners may have even had wording and legalese letting visitors know what is OK and not OK. But if you search for "index of" you might reach web server directories, browse around and reach those documents, and never know it was not authorized by the site owner.
Is searching for "index of" really much different than trying different URL combinations? Look, google even provides a list of URL parameters to use when embedding youtube: https://developers.google.com/youtube/player_parameters.
I know as a developer that I'll often guess at URL parameters when trying to accomplish projects. (For instance, for a long time a segment of this user community, http://www.jasig.org/uportal , was trying to figure out how to open a portlet channel in full screen mode using a URL .)
We really need some new specific laws to handle some of these subtle situations. One condition, which may be part of law already if I recall correctly, is intent. Did the person manipulate a ULR with the intent to reach material that they knew was not allowed? That is way different than google searching for 'index of' and just browsing around.
Imprisonment has always had many purposes: Justice for the victim, deterrent for future criminals, punishment for the criminal in question, possibility of reforming the criminal, etc..
The value and success of each is wildly variable.
We use google apps for education, and I've never seen an ad.
I suppose they may be analyzing our use patterns or other meta-data that benefits some aspect of Google, but it isn't visible to our users.
What size is your corp? I think we are still free despite hundreds of thousands of user accounts.
Pesticide isn't persistent throughout the growing period. It is applied once or twice a season, and depending on which chemical was used, is gone in a few days. So resistance to pesticide is going to take much longer.
I have about 10 different java versions installed on my windows 7 computer at work. When I want to use one particular version of java I run a script to set JAVA_HOME, PATH, etc.. to the appropriate java. Ditto if I'm working on Solaris, Linux, or any other system.
I'm not exactly sure how this could be: "Java is my main language & I end up using it for almost everything" without knowing how to handle multiple java versions in windows.
I do think it would be nice (if possible) to install 32bit and 64bit and have the exe determine which jvm to use.
In terms of UAC, why aren't you launching java.exe as administrator and bypassing the uac headaches..or simply turning UAC off?