That would be extremely beneficial for society for software, music, medicine, hundreds of things. So it won't happen unless you can out-lobby the big players.
Tight corporate IP control and the potential for homogeneity in the food supply are both valid concerns wrt/ GMO food.
Yes they are. So given our patent system is basically broken, what now? Just ignore the potential for massive abuse (or natural disasters) because it hasn't happened yet?
I'd be curious what the ratio of highly capable (capable of being trained as an engineer, scientist, etc..) people are to those less capable. It wouldn't surprise me if I found that this ratio has been fairly constant over hundreds of years, if not thousands.
Likewise, what is the ratio of jobs demanding a high degree of intelligence and book learning vs those that don't (manual labor, service, etc..)? Has this ratio actually drastically changed over the years? A lot of people assume it has, but I'm not sure if it as large a shift as people think.
What were all the smart people in the world doing before computers and ee? Did a percent of the 'smart people' move from professions like law and medicine into computers and electrical engineering as those fields developed? Or did we just train a percent of the previously 'dumb people' to work in ee and computers?
She is not being hypocritical, since she has also spoken out about the influence of big money on politics.
And then she gets on the stage with the biggest Big Money candidate there is, and shouts, "I'm with her!"
I'm fine with people donating to campaigns. I'm not fine with blatant hypocrisy.
Has Warren claimed that Clinton is 'Big Money Free'? Not in the slightest. Warren has claimed that Hillary is a better choice for our country, given the only choice is now between Trump and Clinton. That isn't hypocritical, that pragmatic realism. You'd have a point if there existed any candidate that had a chance of winning besides Clinton that Warren could support.
And don't bring up 3rd party candidates. Sane people do not vote third party, especially when there is 1, possibly up to 3, supreme court justices to be appointed over the next 8 years.
Artificial scarcity as a business model is a losing fight. Artists should not be able to copyright songs, just like fashion designers are currently unable to copyright clothing designs. Artists should be paid for performing songs. If the songwriter is different from the performer, then the performer and the songwriter can work out a contract between each other as to how much the performer should cut the songwriter in per performance (or flat out buy the writes from the songwriter).
Songs should be advertisements, not products. The product should be the performance.
This parallels open source software somewhat: I pay companies for services and support, I don't pay for the software (not all the time obviously).
The real way for people to lose weight is to start cooking from whole ingredients again. Then you don't have to read any labels or trust any companies.
People need to learn that stuff like this http://www.nutritious-food.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/processed-food-packaging.jpg is not food.
Legos are not breakfast. Pop tarts are not a snack. Every single fast food place has designed their food to cram the maximum amount of salt and sugar possible into each byte. Even the stuff that is marketed as being healthy is crap.
I am making an assumption here. The assumption is that your gender identity, and sexual orientation, will one day be a federally protected class just like race, religion, etc.. are.
In that context, your question is as silly as saying "Whose freedom is more important? The Black man who wants to eat in the restaurant, or the restaurant owner who doesn't want him there?".
With this law it is unlikely that bakers in North Carolina will be forced to engage in speech and creative expression against their will as they have been in some other states by homosexual activists wielding local laws as a club with threats of high fines and other adverse consequences.
Should a baker be allowed to deny service to a certain race, religion, or gender, because they choose to believe in 1 particular religion?
While gender is codified into law (federally) as something that cannot be discriminated against, I can easily see a court ruling that a person with a penis is, by law, a male, regardless of how they choose to identify personally. Not that I'd agree, but this isn't math, where 1+1=2. Judges make "judgement calls". Depends on what court takes up the matter and what precedence exists around the issue already.
Are there previous federal court rulings that would allow for the definition of gender to be based on factors beyond the more obvious biological definitions?
"A public facing entity should not be able to discriminate based on religion, ethnicity, sex or LGBT."
Ideally, but LGBT (sexual orientation) isn't codified into federal law or the constitution yet, the way race/religion are. It needs to be, but until that time, states can continue to pass all sorts of discriminating laws. Many states it is 100% legal to fire someone just for being gay.
Things would still be this bad with race/ethnicity if we hadn't passed laws in the 60's to force States to give up their racist laws (separate water fountains, etc..).
Unfortunately, things of this nature usually require the Supreme Court to make the final decision... but that court is currently broken.
Conservative media/pundits have been falsely propping Warren Buffet up as some sort of commie/conspiracy driven/terrorist/baby-killer/you name it for years. Probably because it is extremely rare for an extremely wealthy person to be so vocally liberal.
Just saying the name "Warren Buffet" in a conservative conversation conveys a huge amount of instant meaning to conservative ears. He is like their poster child for everything anti-american.
Case in point: a conservative slashdotter just went back and forth arguing that a rich person donating money to a charity is hypocritical, when that person also states they should pay more in taxes....wtf.
Actually they are. For example Warren Buffet, while saying his taxes should be raised in political venues, in real life dodges taxes. He is dodging inheritance taxes by transferring money to the Gates foundation. Why? Because he thinks Bill and Melinda can more effectively use his money to address social issues than the government, that they will do more "good" per dollar.
And he (W.B.) would be the first to vote to made the "dodges" illegal. But that said, nothing W.B. did by giving money to the Gates foundation would, or should, ever become illegal. Sending a chunk of your wealth to a charity isn't something I would think we could ever want to ban....
If Bernie was elected and got a $15/min wage put into place overnight, you'd see a mad scramble to push automation forward more quickly.
Evidence for that? Because cities that have that already implemented 15/hr wages have not seen a rush to automate. At least, I've never heard of San Fran or Seattle having all their McDonalds automated overnight or anything like that.
But look at it another way: If you make 7 bucks an hour, you are very likely to need government assistance to make ends meet.
Would you rather have a large segment of adults (more adults make min. wage than 18-20 year olds by far) earning 7 dollars an hour, supplemented by food stamps and other government handouts, or would you rather have the 'bottom' wage be liveable, and people able to support themselves without government assistance?
I'm kinda sick of my tax dollars subsidizing Walmart's workforce. And I'd rather reward people who are working with the dignity to be able to afford their own food.
And the real nail in the coffin, so to speak, is that goods and services do become that much more expensive even when doubling wages. Last time I saw the numbers run, a Big Mac would cost 50 cents more. That is way worth it to me if 90% of people could live without government handouts.
If you are using smb2 Mac handles that just fine. So newer NAS' are OK usually. Mine is 4-5 years old and only supports CIFS/NFS.
But my point was, in general, Mac's are much quicker to deprecate support for older technology, meaning if you have a complicated home setup with a lot of non-mac devices that all talk to each other, it has been my experience that it leads to more problems than linux/windows.
Speed is the key issue for most people I know. It literally doubles their commute time to use public transportation. 2 hours a day in traffic vs 30min/1hour.
I think automated cars are going to be very helpful solving that last mile problem.
Lots of people won't bother owning a car if you can press a button on your phone and get picked up in 2-5 minutes from any location by an automated car. I bet a lot of train stations might have bays of automated cars to pick up/drop off passengers for longer train trips. Or, uber or some other company will just litter a town with little 1-2 person automated electric cars that can automatically go to your gps location.
Anon coward, repeating conservative talking points. Must be an election year.
Corporations simple pass any added taxes and costs on to the customer.
Bullshit. Corporations charge the highest possible price the market will pay, always. Lowering their taxes isn't going to lower their prices, as if they have some responsibility to pass the savings along... They will keep the price as high as people are willing to pay. Taxes are irrelevant to that equation.
And at that point in time, when even something like a programming job can be fully automated, it will be time to vote for a different society. A post scarcity society, with a guaranteed minimum income for just being alive.
There are a ton of sci-fi books that describe a post scarcity society, and they are all share one thing in common: it will not be the status quo anymore. The major motivators and power structures of society will shift. And it isn't something that a 'bad' congress can even prevent, no matter how many bribes they take to maintain the status quo.
The day that technology can fully replace most skilled labor, is the day that technology will likely be cheap enough for most people to own it. And once most people can own most, if not all, of the means of production to live, the concept of "for profit" is going to disappear. At least from the raw resource / manufacturing standpoint. I'm sure we will invent new luxuries that people 'must have'. But all the old ones will be gone. If I can throw a shovel of dirt into my 'nano forge' and out pops a diamond, it will be a new world. 3d printers are a baby first step.
I wish business folks and conservative pundits would stop pretending that the minimum wage going up/down is somehow motivating owners to automate. Every single business with any labor costs is going to be 100% automated regardless of the minimum wage if there exists a robot/machine that can do the job cheaply (which, for most types of service/labor work, will happen in every single industry eventually).
There are still weird things that I find Apple does that are annoying. The biggest one recently was basically giving up on NFS/CIFS share support. It takes 1minute plus on my mac mini at home to list a directory on my NAS. Takes 2 seconds on windows or linux.
Every so often, Apple tries to force people to use their protocols or ways of doing things exclusively, and I find that really annoying. It is rare, but like in the case of my NFS example above, there is no fix. The fix was to install linux on my mac mini so I could have network share support again.
And again, little things, like you can't change the global font/menu size of a mac. So as a media center, it sucks. Not a huge use case, I know, but little things like that can't make/break someone's ability to use OSX.
Linux is definitely not as user friendly, and lacks support for a few key apps, but if you don't need those apps, and instead need a solid commitment to 'standards' (like cifs support), linux is better still.
If OSX and linux could take their best features and merge, that would rock.
Tried connecting to a NAS via CIFS or NFS from your Mac? Last time I tried it was horribly slow. Like took 60 seconds to list a directory. Googling, it turns out to be a very well known Mac issue.
That is one reason that forced me to install linux over OSX. Plus, there are a lot of little 'oddities' with OSX. Like no Xwindows server by default. No central app repository by default (like apt-get install ).
Someone probably has a "setup your mac as a developer box with app repo, xserver,, etc.." script that installs all the dev stuff most people expect to see, but I haven't bothered to look for it yet.
Everyone has different needs of course, but I started with a mac mini as a media center, and ended up switching to linux. Although windows would have worked also I think.
My main issue was the Mac was horribly slow connecting to NFS/CIFS shares... where I kept all my media on a nas.
The is the main problem with OSX. If Apple decides they aren't supporting X, sometimes you just are screwed if you need X. And X can sometimes be very standard things that all windows/linux machines handle.
More like rent-a-cop security from the guy off the night job at the mall.
I can't speak for all nuclear plants, but I know people that work at one plant, and their security is closer to swat than mall cops for sure. They have regular exercises where they defend the area from attackers (big complicated game of laser tag basically:)) in the middle of the night, drills about stopping a van full of explosives, etc..
Slashdot Mirror
Drop them back to the original term of 14 years
That would be extremely beneficial for society for software, music, medicine, hundreds of things. So it won't happen unless you can out-lobby the big players.
Tight corporate IP control and the potential for homogeneity in the food supply are both valid concerns wrt/ GMO food.
Yes they are. So given our patent system is basically broken, what now? Just ignore the potential for massive abuse (or natural disasters) because it hasn't happened yet?
I'd be curious what the ratio of highly capable (capable of being trained as an engineer, scientist, etc..) people are to those less capable. It wouldn't surprise me if I found that this ratio has been fairly constant over hundreds of years, if not thousands.
Likewise, what is the ratio of jobs demanding a high degree of intelligence and book learning vs those that don't (manual labor, service, etc..)? Has this ratio actually drastically changed over the years? A lot of people assume it has, but I'm not sure if it as large a shift as people think.
What were all the smart people in the world doing before computers and ee? Did a percent of the 'smart people' move from professions like law and medicine into computers and electrical engineering as those fields developed? Or did we just train a percent of the previously 'dumb people' to work in ee and computers?
She is not being hypocritical, since she has also spoken out about the influence of big money on politics.
And then she gets on the stage with the biggest Big Money candidate there is, and shouts, "I'm with her!"
I'm fine with people donating to campaigns. I'm not fine with blatant hypocrisy.
Has Warren claimed that Clinton is 'Big Money Free'? Not in the slightest. Warren has claimed that Hillary is a better choice for our country, given the only choice is now between Trump and Clinton. That isn't hypocritical, that pragmatic realism. You'd have a point if there existed any candidate that had a chance of winning besides Clinton that Warren could support.
And don't bring up 3rd party candidates. Sane people do not vote third party, especially when there is 1, possibly up to 3, supreme court justices to be appointed over the next 8 years.
Artificial scarcity as a business model is a losing fight. Artists should not be able to copyright songs, just like fashion designers are currently unable to copyright clothing designs. Artists should be paid for performing songs. If the songwriter is different from the performer, then the performer and the songwriter can work out a contract between each other as to how much the performer should cut the songwriter in per performance (or flat out buy the writes from the songwriter).
Songs should be advertisements, not products. The product should be the performance.
This parallels open source software somewhat: I pay companies for services and support, I don't pay for the software (not all the time obviously).
I guess you don't have kids:)
The real way for people to lose weight is to start cooking from whole ingredients again. Then you don't have to read any labels or trust any companies.
People need to learn that stuff like this
http://www.nutritious-food.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/processed-food-packaging.jpg
is not food.
Legos are not breakfast. Pop tarts are not a snack. Every single fast food place has designed their food to cram the maximum amount of salt and sugar possible into each byte. Even the stuff that is marketed as being healthy is crap.
"Name a Socialist country that has been clean for more than a year."
Norway, Sweden, etc.. you consider those nations corrupt? When compared to the US?
Whose freedom is more important?
I am making an assumption here. The assumption is that your gender identity, and sexual orientation, will one day be a federally protected class just like race, religion, etc.. are.
In that context, your question is as silly as saying "Whose freedom is more important? The Black man who wants to eat in the restaurant, or the restaurant owner who doesn't want him there?".
With this law it is unlikely that bakers in North Carolina will be forced to engage in speech and creative expression against their will as they have been in some other states by homosexual activists wielding local laws as a club with threats of high fines and other adverse consequences.
Should a baker be allowed to deny service to a certain race, religion, or gender, because they choose to believe in 1 particular religion?
The laws are blatantly unconstitutional
While gender is codified into law (federally) as something that cannot be discriminated against, I can easily see a court ruling that a person with a penis is, by law, a male, regardless of how they choose to identify personally. Not that I'd agree, but this isn't math, where 1+1=2. Judges make "judgement calls". Depends on what court takes up the matter and what precedence exists around the issue already.
Are there previous federal court rulings that would allow for the definition of gender to be based on factors beyond the more obvious biological definitions?
"A public facing entity should not be able to discriminate based on religion, ethnicity, sex or LGBT."
Ideally, but LGBT (sexual orientation) isn't codified into federal law or the constitution yet, the way race/religion are. It needs to be, but until that time, states can continue to pass all sorts of discriminating laws. Many states it is 100% legal to fire someone just for being gay.
Things would still be this bad with race/ethnicity if we hadn't passed laws in the 60's to force States to give up their racist laws (separate water fountains, etc..).
Unfortunately, things of this nature usually require the Supreme Court to make the final decision... but that court is currently broken.
You're working too hard here to demonize him.
Conservative media/pundits have been falsely propping Warren Buffet up as some sort of commie/conspiracy driven/terrorist/baby-killer/you name it for years. Probably because it is extremely rare for an extremely wealthy person to be so vocally liberal.
Just saying the name "Warren Buffet" in a conservative conversation conveys a huge amount of instant meaning to conservative ears. He is like their poster child for everything anti-american.
Case in point: a conservative slashdotter just went back and forth arguing that a rich person donating money to a charity is hypocritical, when that person also states they should pay more in taxes....wtf.
They are not hypocrites.
Actually they are. For example Warren Buffet, while saying his taxes should be raised in political venues, in real life dodges taxes. He is dodging inheritance taxes by transferring money to the Gates foundation. Why? Because he thinks Bill and Melinda can more effectively use his money to address social issues than the government, that they will do more "good" per dollar.
And he (W.B.) would be the first to vote to made the "dodges" illegal. But that said, nothing W.B. did by giving money to the Gates foundation would, or should, ever become illegal. Sending a chunk of your wealth to a charity isn't something I would think we could ever want to ban....
If Bernie was elected and got a $15/min wage put into place overnight, you'd see a mad scramble to push automation forward more quickly.
Evidence for that? Because cities that have that already implemented 15/hr wages have not seen a rush to automate. At least, I've never heard of San Fran or Seattle having all their McDonalds automated overnight or anything like that.
But look at it another way: If you make 7 bucks an hour, you are very likely to need government assistance to make ends meet.
Would you rather have a large segment of adults (more adults make min. wage than 18-20 year olds by far) earning 7 dollars an hour, supplemented by food stamps and other government handouts, or would you rather have the 'bottom' wage be liveable, and people able to support themselves without government assistance?
I'm kinda sick of my tax dollars subsidizing Walmart's workforce. And I'd rather reward people who are working with the dignity to be able to afford their own food.
And the real nail in the coffin, so to speak, is that goods and services do become that much more expensive even when doubling wages. Last time I saw the numbers run, a Big Mac would cost 50 cents more. That is way worth it to me if 90% of people could live without government handouts.
If you are using smb2 Mac handles that just fine. So newer NAS' are OK usually. Mine is 4-5 years old and only supports CIFS/NFS.
But my point was, in general, Mac's are much quicker to deprecate support for older technology, meaning if you have a complicated home setup with a lot of non-mac devices that all talk to each other, it has been my experience that it leads to more problems than linux/windows.
Speed is the key issue for most people I know. It literally doubles their commute time to use public transportation. 2 hours a day in traffic vs 30min/1hour.
I think automated cars are going to be very helpful solving that last mile problem.
Lots of people won't bother owning a car if you can press a button on your phone and get picked up in 2-5 minutes from any location by an automated car. I bet a lot of train stations might have bays of automated cars to pick up/drop off passengers for longer train trips. Or, uber or some other company will just litter a town with little 1-2 person automated electric cars that can automatically go to your gps location.
Anon coward, repeating conservative talking points. Must be an election year.
Corporations simple pass any added taxes and costs on to the customer.
Bullshit. Corporations charge the highest possible price the market will pay, always. Lowering their taxes isn't going to lower their prices, as if they have some responsibility to pass the savings along... They will keep the price as high as people are willing to pay. Taxes are irrelevant to that equation.
And at that point in time, when even something like a programming job can be fully automated, it will be time to vote for a different society. A post scarcity society, with a guaranteed minimum income for just being alive.
There are a ton of sci-fi books that describe a post scarcity society, and they are all share one thing in common: it will not be the status quo anymore. The major motivators and power structures of society will shift. And it isn't something that a 'bad' congress can even prevent, no matter how many bribes they take to maintain the status quo.
The day that technology can fully replace most skilled labor, is the day that technology will likely be cheap enough for most people to own it. And once most people can own most, if not all, of the means of production to live, the concept of "for profit" is going to disappear. At least from the raw resource / manufacturing standpoint. I'm sure we will invent new luxuries that people 'must have'. But all the old ones will be gone. If I can throw a shovel of dirt into my 'nano forge' and out pops a diamond, it will be a new world. 3d printers are a baby first step.
I wish business folks and conservative pundits would stop pretending that the minimum wage going up/down is somehow motivating owners to automate. Every single business with any labor costs is going to be 100% automated regardless of the minimum wage if there exists a robot/machine that can do the job cheaply (which, for most types of service/labor work, will happen in every single industry eventually).
There are still weird things that I find Apple does that are annoying. The biggest one recently was basically giving up on NFS/CIFS share support. It takes 1minute plus on my mac mini at home to list a directory on my NAS. Takes 2 seconds on windows or linux.
Every so often, Apple tries to force people to use their protocols or ways of doing things exclusively, and I find that really annoying. It is rare, but like in the case of my NFS example above, there is no fix. The fix was to install linux on my mac mini so I could have network share support again.
And again, little things, like you can't change the global font/menu size of a mac. So as a media center, it sucks. Not a huge use case, I know, but little things like that can't make/break someone's ability to use OSX.
Linux is definitely not as user friendly, and lacks support for a few key apps, but if you don't need those apps, and instead need a solid commitment to 'standards' (like cifs support), linux is better still.
If OSX and linux could take their best features and merge, that would rock.
Jason
Tried connecting to a NAS via CIFS or NFS from your Mac? Last time I tried it was horribly slow. Like took 60 seconds to list a directory. Googling, it turns out to be a very well known Mac issue.
That is one reason that forced me to install linux over OSX. Plus, there are a lot of little 'oddities' with OSX. Like no Xwindows server by default. No central app repository by default (like apt-get install ).
Someone probably has a "setup your mac as a developer box with app repo, xserver,, etc.." script that installs all the dev stuff most people expect to see, but I haven't bothered to look for it yet.
Jason
Everyone has different needs of course, but I started with a mac mini as a media center, and ended up switching to linux. Although windows would have worked also I think.
My main issue was the Mac was horribly slow connecting to NFS/CIFS shares... where I kept all my media on a nas.
The is the main problem with OSX. If Apple decides they aren't supporting X, sometimes you just are screwed if you need X. And X can sometimes be very standard things that all windows/linux machines handle.
How do you get by without network share support?
More like rent-a-cop security from the guy off the night job at the mall.
I can't speak for all nuclear plants, but I know people that work at one plant, and their security is closer to swat than mall cops for sure. They have regular exercises where they defend the area from attackers (big complicated game of laser tag basically:)) in the middle of the night, drills about stopping a van full of explosives, etc..
He is probably referring to a Princeton study: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746