The problem was that if an underling told him something he wanted to hear (ie: "we can have a better army, that costs less money and employs fewer troops if we change strategic concepts from Firepower-focused to Maneuver Warfare," "I have incontrovertible evidence that Saddam has WMD so we can invade, and am totally not making this shit up so you'll invade for me and make me Prime Minister," or "it will be easy to get the Iraqi people to go along with whatever we want after we get rid of Saddam for them") he'd decide that particular underling was clearly the smartest guy in the room and go with whatever that guy said.
Which is not really surprising, when you consider that his pre-political career was mostly being a mediocre MBA.
If a computer fucks up it's memory allocation it doesn't destroy itself, so memory partition/allocation is not survival. It's operations. Which is presumably a lower priority then the "don't kill people" code because any robot that kills people is gonna expose it's owners to massive liability.
My point is that passing this law would not have the practical effect that people want when they call for it.
People would think "Great our freedom is protected and we don't have to worry about the NSA," due to the law, but none of that would actually be true. The NSA would act the same 99% of the time because there's no wya to catch them when they send data over to law enforcement.
HIPAA doesn't work like that because the law works like that. HIPAA works like that because Doctors are very very good at their area of expertise (Medicine), but have no fucking clue how the legal system works. For example, it is incredibly common for an American Doctor to claim he has to be more expensive then his Canadian counterparts because of Evil Malpractice Lawsuits, and then give you a totally blank stare when you ask the last time anyone he knows in real life lost such a suit.
Let's say you're doing some really heavy drugs and the entire Doctor's office knows. And you Facebook about it and your privacy settings are "what? why would a junkie need privacy?". If the nurse calls the DEA tipline anonymously two things happen: 1) You are completely fucked, because your Facebook page gives them enough to ask for warrants. Even if it didn't they are allowed to contact you without a warrant, or declaring who they are, so they could message you and if your conversation is suspicious enough the Judge may grant a warrant. 2) It is absolutely impossible for HIPAA to ever come into play because nobody will ever know it was the Nurse who snitched on your ass.
This proposal has the same flaw, except that since NSA spooks actually know how the legal system works they would take advantage of the anonymous tiplines to snitch to the FBI.
I didn't say anything about what the law could require. I said lots about what it can actually do.
And if the FBI's anonymous tipline gets a tip from the NSA there is no real world way for anyone but the NSA Tipster to know, which in turn means there is no way to prevent NSA tips. Under Aguilar-Spinelli (which has, BTW, been significantly weakened recently) the cops have to tell the Judge what they know about the tipster. And if what they know is that he called their anonymous tipline, or sent them an email from a throwaway Hotmail address, then that can trigger a preliminary investigation. The shit that doesn't require a warrant -- googling your name, checking public websites (like Facebook and LinkedIn) -- doesn't magically start requiring a warrant just because the tip that led them to start the damn investigation is an anonymous call.
Then they put the results of that preliminary investigation in their warrant application, with as much info on the anonymous tip as the Judge wants, and they can start doing the real investigative work that requires warrants.
Keep in mind that Europe's numbers are mostly young people who can't find jobs in the first place.
Europe's primary unemployment problem is with young workers, priced out of the market by regulations. Europe's long-term unemployment problem is a separate problem that affects older workers.
So you're saying that 25% of Spain's youth are unemployed, but none of the 11% who have been unemployed for a year is a youth?
Either economists are describing their statistics wrong, or you're greatly mistaken.
You get fired from an UAW or UMWA job at 55 and you are almost certain to end up banging around in retail or other near-minimum wage occupations
So you're saying someone works a union blue collar 40h/week job and never bothers to learn any new skills or complete their college degree in 30 years. How is that a problem with automation? If you're a web programmer at IBM and you get assigned a new colleague to your team who's been with the company for 30 years, and he tells you "I only do COBOL and I don't want to learn anything new", how would you react?
Why are you assuming they started a college degree? Roughly a third of people over the age of 25 have never taken a single college course, and when you get to 50-somethings it's probably greater.
Moreover what makes you think that they've "never learned anything new?" You really have no clue how somebody who does actual work (as in, not sitting at a desk typing smart things into a compiler) does their job. In the 70s when these guys started all they needed to know to work at a plant was how to tighten a bolt. They still have some jobs like that at the entry-level, but by the time you hit 50 at an Auto plant you've probably been running a multi-million robot for several years.
You, my friend, could not replace a typical 50-something auto-worker without years worth of training. Neither could I. Same with miners, and numerous other jobs that have been Creatively Destroyed over the past few decades.
No society can tolerate that kind of attitude. In socialist societies, they would simply force you to keep your skills updated. In capitalist societies, we assume that people are aware that they can be fired any day and need to keep their skills updated.
As I said before, they've done plenty of skill-updating. The problem isn't that their skills are out-of-date, it's that the Mexicans/Chinese/whoever works a lot cheaper, so even if you need two Mexicans to do the work of one American (and in the early days of NAFTA, that wasn't unusual) you still save money.
In the meantime you'll have to downgrade almost everything, because you aren't making $60k a year anymore.
Yes: if you lose your job, you didn't get insurance, and you don't have savings, you need to downgrade. Again, I fail to see how that is anybody's responsibility but yours.
You're conflating the vagaries of the market to personal responsibility, apparently due to a combination of cheapness ("Why should I pay for it") and a total lack of understanding. Understanding of anything, at all, really. You are the definition of the Dunning-Krueger Effect, and the ignorant crap you're repeating is a major reason life sucks for so many of the people I love. Fuck you.
As I said before, if you had anything close to a clue about what you were talking about you'd know this isn't a lack-of-skills issue. It's a too-many-skills issue. In manufacturing, in particular, US workers have to be very skilled (and thus expensive) to compete, but that means when a foreign country skills up even a little bit they can no longer compete.
And here's why you should go along with it: because there's no guarantee that in the next ten years India won't figure out how to code to the standards American businesses set. If they do you become the American with to
That statute would be the freedom version of Security Theater.
There is no way to prevent Agents of the Executive Branch from giving tips to law enforcement. It's called the First Amendment, and it applies to everyone. You could prevent them from sending actual data files from work over, but a simple phone call saying "Mr. FBI Man, you really should get a warrant to look at this phone number for drug smuggling," or "Mr. FBI Man, this guy is talking to some terrorists" cannot be prevented by statute. It's similar to the laws "forcing" you to declare the $5 bill you found on Line 21 of your tax return. Perfectly valid legally but of no effect in real life.
You spend too much time around Doctors. They're very smart, and very good at figuring out how the human body works as a system; but their cluelessness as to how the health system pays them is frankly astonishing to anyone who has to deal with them for more then 10 minutes. These are people who will, with a straight face, tell that one reason they deserve more respect then other PhDs (average salary: not $55k) is that they spent four years in pecuniary earning only $55k for their residencies.
In this case, no GPs are never going to be fired en masse. Arguments saying Nurse Practitioners are better, or a computer would be better are simply irrelevant in light of the fact that consumers want to go to see a Doctor. Since the co-pay is the same either way NPs can only gain market-share in places where there are not enough GPs. Which means that no, no hospital is going to actually fire a GP and replace him. It would be stupid business, so an MD-run hospital might try it, and if you tried you'd lose market-share to the newly opened GP partnership of three guys you fired.
Moreover, Specialists willing to work in places far from the costs make princely salaries. $500k is not unrealistic. $200k is not unusual for people whose entire job is to read test results and not talk to patients.
Let me put it to you this way, which Hospital do you think is will do better: A) Hospital A's business model is to fire three guys making $150k, replacing them with 3 NPs making $40k. This gives them $330k to buy a computer system that has to understand the entire human body.
B) Hospital B reduces is Surgical staff by two because it can out-source all data analysis in their specialties to a computer it will buy. It has saved $1 million. It can hire all 3 GPs A) just fired and it's computer budget is $550k. Which means not only does it have a better computer, that does less (remember: instead of understanding everything as a GP does it only has to understand a couple of specialties well enough that their specialists can cut analysis a few hours a week), it also poaches most of the patients those 3 GPs saw, and it's got a great marketing angle ("see a real Doctor").
Keep in mind that Europe's numbers are mostly young people who can't find jobs in the first place. It's also not continent-wide -- all the Scandinavian states beat us, for example. Their problem is the opposite of the one I've identified. When you reduce the "Destruction" aspect of "Creative Destruction" you reduce the "Creative," which makes it harder for young people to break into the workplace.
Who said anything about potential solutions involving their employers? I'm arguing the situation sucks, and the current economy is not set up to deal with it. If you're proposing something like a couple years of cost-of-living payments, and free tuition from the Feds; that's something I'd love to explore.
As for the "arrogance," the numbers don't lie. You get fired from an UAW or UMWA job at 55 and you are almost certain to end up banging around in retail or other near-minimum wage occupations until you're 62.5, and then take your Social Security early. Going to college is not attractive because you'll be 57 before you get an Associates (59 for a Bachelors) and then you'll only have a few years to pay off the loans. In the meantime you'll have to downgrade almost everything, because you aren't making $60k a year anymore.
Your wife's job is analyzing data. Given enough processing power and background data the computer will be both better at her job and cheaper. It will also be right there in the office so that they can immediately do what needs to be done, and not rely on their office manager types to get the patient back in for the bad/good news.
Now I doubt it'll happen in the next 5-10 years, but 15 years from now your wifve will be looking for a new line of work.
All a GP does to diagnose a problem is follow a flowchart. It is mostly memorized, but there is no reason that it couldn't be computerized, or even printed on paper. A nurse with a checklist implemented as an iPad app could probably diagnose most problems just as well as a doctor.
True, but in theory that nurse doesn't need either the flowchart or the iPad.
In this country we have a unique relationship with the medical field that leads to a) them being paid double what anyone else makes, b) being entrusted with actually running hospitals, etc. We're not gonna replace them wholesale with a bunch of working class women who have Associates degrees. It would probably be smart, but it is not the smart thing we do.
What I predict will happen is that smart hospitals will fire as many specialists as they can. They'll replace them with Watson-type programs and medical robots, and then spend the money they save on a combination of ego-boosting the hospital administrator and hiring enough GPs that they can spend an hour with every patient. The ego-boosting is inherent to the system, the extra GPs are to bring in lots more patients (who, remember, will respond to a advertisement with the phrase "spend an hour with your Doctor if you need it" by showing up en masses), the GPs will send many sick people to the computers, which brinhgs in huge bucks, so the administrator gets more ego-boo; which leads the administrator down the street to do the same damn thing...
Whether they're replaceable really depends on the Specialty.
If their job is to be on a team that reads a couple different charts, decides on a curse of action, and then performs a surgery, then you could probably replace everyone but one guy with computers today. That's what Watson is intended to do with many cancer specialists.
Get a decent surgical robot and now the one guy gets knocked back to part-time.
OTOH, the kind of Doctor we think of when we talk about Doctors (the GP who does your check-up and refers you to that team) we'll probably have more of them. People like their Doctor, and they don't like that they only have 20 minutes with him. The computers also need a human to interpret noisy check-up data for them. But nobody's gonna notice that last year there were six guys on the Prostate Cancer team at the local hospital, and that five of them were fired when it bought a version of Watson from IBM and a couple prostate-knowing robots.
Any other job that's working class and involves making real money will be automated sooner rather then later, as (at least in the States) working class guys have very little ability to stop their employer from replacing them with machines.
You mean mind-numbing, back-breaking, dangerous jobs will be replaced with safer, more interesting jobs? Great! The sooner the better.
Great in economic theory. In practice we've never been good at figuring out WTF to do with a 50-year-old guy whose got no marketable skills because the robots took his job.
Believe me. I'm from Detroit. 50-year-old guys typically aren't terribly mobile because they've got families. They ain't moving to North Dakota to work the oil patch. Even if they had the income to take a few years off and get a degree a) their last experience as a student was 30 years ago, while b) if that experience hadn't sucked they probably would have gotten the degree back then.
GPs will be fine. People really like having a human Doctor. Particularly an American-accented human Doctor. Unless the Hospital can bill the insurance company extra for using the human GP they will continue to use the human GP. And the insurers aren't likely to pay extra so the hospital can replace a GP earning low six figures with a computer. Moreover computers would make really shitty GPs, as they are unable to figure out whether you have high blood pressure because you're about to die, or because you're nervous that a robot has just grabbed your fucking arm.
OTOH, many specialists entire job is reading a chart. The chart's format does not change much. Interpreting data is something computers are great at. Watson was already measurably better at reading certain specialized charts then actual Doctors back in '13. Those guys are gone. They make more then a GP does, while frequently bringing in less revenue, and the patient's aren't going to ding your Medicare quality ratings because a behind-the-scenes Doctor they'd never met got replaced by a computer.
This is just like any other skilled work that can be automated. The textile machines of the early 19th century were demonstrably worse then many weavers, but they were a) cheaper, and b) better then the average. So as of 1840 or so weaver was no longer a career option. Computers are already better then the average specialist in some fields, and they will be cheaper soon enough thanks to Moore's Law.
Question: When you talk to actual people, and not your friend wikipedia, and you say "lawyers and doctors;" do they assume you mean the hordes of JDs punching their time-clocks deep in the bowels of a massive firm and a highly paid specialist who they see once a lifetime to get test results; or do they think you mean Trial Lawyers and their General Practitioner?
As I said in another post on this thread, a lot of medical specialists will be replaced by computers. But only in settings where patients can't notice. The GP will send you to a test site where a working class dude with an Associate's will run his diagnostic computer. Then he'll send the result to your GP, who will read it to you. You'll go to surgery where a single surgeon will oversee both the robotic surgeon and the anesthetics machine. If (at any point) you figure out that the whole process would have required an MD at the testing facility, an MD Anesthesiologist, two other surgeons on the team, each costing 500k per year; as well as a half-dozen more nurses at $40k per year, you will freak out and go to some other hospital.
It's the same in law offices. You'll always have a lawyer you talk to when you need a lawyer. You won't know that in the 80s to do what he's doing for you he would have needed a couple paralegals, a newly-minted bunny lawyer to do the boring legal research in paper books, etc.
No I mean logic. There is a very rigorous framework everyone but the Supreme Court has to follow, and you have to be able to connect every decision you make to that framework. US Courts are not allowed to do common-sense solutions such as threaten to saw a baby in half to see which person loves it more. They have to base their decision on rigorous logic.
They can include some elements of "reasonable man" judgement, but the circumstances that require Reasonable Man's judgment are pretty well-known, and it's very unusual for anyone to read a Judge's opinion on what Reasonable Man would say and disagree. On the other hand, common sense is constantly debated.
In this case it's relevant because common sense would indicate that if he has the right to do it under Fair Use, so does she. But if you actually get into the legal tests it's not that simple. There are four. I'll go through them:
1) The "did they change the work enough to count as transformative?" test. He can make this case, given the change in format, the new context, and the art communities endless ability to rationalize ridiculous BS. She is selling her version as interchangeable with his work. Either her version is a replacement for his work (and not transformative) or it isn't. I give him a 50% chance of winning this test (at best), but she simply can't.
2) This is the test where they apply special rules to factual works, unpublished works, etc. It is irrelevant to this case.
3) The test of how much of the copyrighted work was taken for the copy. In both cases it was 100%. But it only applies if the other three tests are tripped. If he can skate on tests one and four he's fine, and we've established he might be able to skate on test one. She didn't pass test one, so the fact that her work includes 100% of his means she's fucked.
4) The test of the actual damage done to the original work's market. The work he copied is a Instagram post which she may not have retained copyright on. Even if she's making money off it, it's impossible to claim that her income from selling mas-produced copies of it on the internet would be reduced by him selling a single copy for $90k. And as I pointed out back in test one, her entire marketing pitch is "pay this $90 rather then the $90,000 that asshole charges," which makes it rather difficult for her to claim she isn't actively trying to destroy the market for his work.
The article actually describes a case in which he took somebody else's photos from a book, made some small (but noticeable) changes, and then sold them for millions. Once he convinced the Appeals Court he'd passed the first test, the rest were irrelevant, and he forced a favorable settlement. I suspect he'd have trouble proving the first test in this case, as he didn't actually change anything about the images themselves, but he's got the kind of money to hire some really good lawyers.
So yes, the Courts are 100% logic, and that logic could easily turn into an extremely unsensible verdict for our poor Suicide Girl.
Any other job that's working class and involves making real money will be automated sooner rather then later, as (at least in the States) working class guys have very little ability to stop their employer from replacing them with machines.
Cashier at a store will probably be around for awhile, particularly in bad neighborhoods. They're much better at catching shoplifters then a self-checkout line is. But a lot of the back of the store jobs will either go away or turn into "dude who fixes the robot who puts shit on the shelves" type gigs.
I suspect quite a few other jobs behind the scenes will be automated. For example, why have a human X-Ray Tech analyze your pictures when computer image analysis is getting so much better? Heck, why have a team of Medical Specialists who make ($500k a year each) when a computer program can read the data and do the work?
"Requires the mind?" That's the biggest oversimplification on this thread yet.
50 years ago the hordes of people who worked in analysis departments with massive paper spreadsheets probably thought of themselves as knowledge workers.
Lots of people will be replaced. The ones least likely to be replaced are a) socially prestigious, or b) in jobs that require direct interaction with humans. So lawyers and Doctors are safer then anyone else.
You're missing about three assumptions: there are four tests, not one. Specifically they are: 1) Is the purpose of the new work different (ie: is it transformed?). 2) The specific nature of the work (you have more right to crib from a biography or a scientific paper then you do from a Novel). 3) The amount of the work used. 4) Whether the new work undercuts the market for the old work.
Test 2 doesn't come into play in this dispute because they're not arguing about the special works that count (unpublished works, factual works, etc.). If he's got a valid argument the work was transformed under Test 1 and isn't messing with the market for her work under Test 4 the Courts ignore Test 3. He actually won a case on this exact line of arguments before.
OTOH, her marketing is that she's trying to under-cut the market for his work, which means she has conceded test 4. It also means that the transformation under Test 1 is questionable, because you can't simultaneously claim that your art is so much like his art that they''re interchangeable and claim you've fundamentally changed it. Which brings Test 3 back into play, and she fails that one because 100% of his work is in her work.
Now all this is assuming he wins the point on Test 1. In the case I mentioned you could actually tell the altered Prince version from the original, unaltered, Cariou version, at a glance. He'd do shit like notice the dude in the black and white photo had his arms at the correct angle to be holding an electric guitar, and he'd add a purple guitar. In this case it's a lot trickier to tell the difference because you'd have to know the usernames he used for his comments.
Moreover the potential plaintiffs, who mostly seem to be pretty young American woman (at least one, SuicideGirls, run their own business, and the others are the kind of public performers who run their lives like it's a business), are the kind of people Courts go out of their way to be fair to. Cariou is an art-photographer obscure enough that he doesn't even have his own wikipedia page.
That would be one angle the Court could follow. But I doubt it. It's too much common sense, and not enough logic. "Turnabout is fair play" is only a well-rocognized legal principle in courtroom dramas.
I suspect if this ends up in Court (and I doubt it will), the Suicide Girls would have a pretty good case because you can't tell who created which photo without reading some mighty fine print. The case he won you could easily tell which photos were his re-appropriations because he did shit like add a purple guitar to a black and white photo. And I sincerely doubt any Judge wants to create a precedent that could be used for movie production companies to stiff musicians on royalties for their songs.
Fear of doing something stupid that the Supreme Court has to over-rule is even more important to the Judicial system then logic.
Always remember the law is about rigorous logic. It has absolutely nothing to do with common sense.
There are entire schools of art dedicated to "transforming" ordinary objects by putting them in galleries so everyone can speculate about what precisely you meant when you decided to put your unmade bed, a couple condoms, and dirty underwear on a pedestal in a gallery. So plenty of people will defend his work as "transformative" solely because he printed the photos out on really big paper and put them on the wall of a gallery. The Courts actually bought a similar argument in his last legal kerfuffle because his extremely expensive work was unlikely to affect the market for the the down-market originals, and Instagram isn't exactly high end. By the same token they could easily rule that her re-appropriation of his appropriation is not fair use because a) she's explicitly trying to undercut his market, and b) the product is virtually identical.
That said, in that last case he actually changed the photos to the extent you can tell the original from the Richard Prince version at a glance. You can't do that in this case.
Keep in mind that to many artists the place you see an object is a big part of the work. Simply by converting the photos from an electronic format on Instagram into large canvas prints in a gallery he transformed the works. There are actually entire schools of art devoted to taking random shit, placing them in galleries, so everyone can stand around speculating about what you meant when you decided to display your bed*. And if if the new photo counts as a transformation then it's a completely new work and the original owner's copyright does not apply. In other words he can almost certainly get as many Doctors of the Fine Arts as he wants to write impassioned essays defending his right to do this shit.
Always remember: the law is 100% logic, 0% common sense.
That said, I'm pretty skeptical that the Courts would buy it. The case he won he actually changed a guy's pictures to the point that you can instantly tell the Prince version from the Cariou original even when both of them are digital reproductions on your monitor.
*The bed in question sold for 150k GBP top a collector, who just sold it for $4,351,969 so clearly this bed is art and not pretentious BS from lazy people who mistake a tendency to over-analyze with intelligent commentary.
I suspect what he was saying is that Western equipment is way better (our electronics were orders of magnitude better even back when they were a superpower).
Of course if it's below minimum feature set then all cars are below minimum feature set because nobody has a system like this installed by default.
BTW, I suggest you read the article. The "self-parking" thing is apparently a lost-in-translation moment. The Journalists in question are Spanish speakers from the Dominican Republic, while the ones quoted in Slashdot are Anglophones. The car does have that self-parking feature, but the video is not near a parking spot, and the car is clearly not trying to park (ie: it's not in reverse). It's jumping forward at very high speed. The Volvo engineer was trying to tell the Journalist that a) this has nothing to do with self-parking, b) the feature they were trying to test was apparently not present on this car, and c) even if it had been it would have been disabled because the driver floored. When that happens, the accelerator every driving assistance system in the world will assume that it's supposed to turn itself off so the car can go forward really really fast.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, Bush tried.
The problem was that if an underling told him something he wanted to hear (ie: "we can have a better army, that costs less money and employs fewer troops if we change strategic concepts from Firepower-focused to Maneuver Warfare," "I have incontrovertible evidence that Saddam has WMD so we can invade, and am totally not making this shit up so you'll invade for me and make me Prime Minister," or "it will be easy to get the Iraqi people to go along with whatever we want after we get rid of Saddam for them") he'd decide that particular underling was clearly the smartest guy in the room and go with whatever that guy said.
Which is not really surprising, when you consider that his pre-political career was mostly being a mediocre MBA.
If a computer fucks up it's memory allocation it doesn't destroy itself, so memory partition/allocation is not survival. It's operations. Which is presumably a lower priority then the "don't kill people" code because any robot that kills people is gonna expose it's owners to massive liability.
My point is that passing this law would not have the practical effect that people want when they call for it.
People would think "Great our freedom is protected and we don't have to worry about the NSA," due to the law, but none of that would actually be true. The NSA would act the same 99% of the time because there's no wya to catch them when they send data over to law enforcement.
HIPAA doesn't work like that because the law works like that. HIPAA works like that because Doctors are very very good at their area of expertise (Medicine), but have no fucking clue how the legal system works. For example, it is incredibly common for an American Doctor to claim he has to be more expensive then his Canadian counterparts because of Evil Malpractice Lawsuits, and then give you a totally blank stare when you ask the last time anyone he knows in real life lost such a suit.
Let's say you're doing some really heavy drugs and the entire Doctor's office knows. And you Facebook about it and your privacy settings are "what? why would a junkie need privacy?". If the nurse calls the DEA tipline anonymously two things happen:
1) You are completely fucked, because your Facebook page gives them enough to ask for warrants. Even if it didn't they are allowed to contact you without a warrant, or declaring who they are, so they could message you and if your conversation is suspicious enough the Judge may grant a warrant.
2) It is absolutely impossible for HIPAA to ever come into play because nobody will ever know it was the Nurse who snitched on your ass.
This proposal has the same flaw, except that since NSA spooks actually know how the legal system works they would take advantage of the anonymous tiplines to snitch to the FBI.
I didn't say anything about what the law could require. I said lots about what it can actually do.
And if the FBI's anonymous tipline gets a tip from the NSA there is no real world way for anyone but the NSA Tipster to know, which in turn means there is no way to prevent NSA tips. Under Aguilar-Spinelli (which has, BTW, been significantly weakened recently) the cops have to tell the Judge what they know about the tipster. And if what they know is that he called their anonymous tipline, or sent them an email from a throwaway Hotmail address, then that can trigger a preliminary investigation. The shit that doesn't require a warrant -- googling your name, checking public websites (like Facebook and LinkedIn) -- doesn't magically start requiring a warrant just because the tip that led them to start the damn investigation is an anonymous call.
Then they put the results of that preliminary investigation in their warrant application, with as much info on the anonymous tip as the Judge wants, and they can start doing the real investigative work that requires warrants.
Europe's primary unemployment problem is with young workers, priced out of the market by regulations. Europe's long-term unemployment problem is a separate problem that affects older workers.
So you're saying that 25% of Spain's youth are unemployed, but none of the 11% who have been unemployed for a year is a youth?
Either economists are describing their statistics wrong, or you're greatly mistaken.
So you're saying someone works a union blue collar 40h/week job and never bothers to learn any new skills or complete their college degree in 30 years. How is that a problem with automation? If you're a web programmer at IBM and you get assigned a new colleague to your team who's been with the company for 30 years, and he tells you "I only do COBOL and I don't want to learn anything new", how would you react?
Why are you assuming they started a college degree? Roughly a third of people over the age of 25 have never taken a single college course, and when you get to 50-somethings it's probably greater.
Moreover what makes you think that they've "never learned anything new?" You really have no clue how somebody who does actual work (as in, not sitting at a desk typing smart things into a compiler) does their job. In the 70s when these guys started all they needed to know to work at a plant was how to tighten a bolt. They still have some jobs like that at the entry-level, but by the time you hit 50 at an Auto plant you've probably been running a multi-million robot for several years.
You, my friend, could not replace a typical 50-something auto-worker without years worth of training. Neither could I. Same with miners, and numerous other jobs that have been Creatively Destroyed over the past few decades.
No society can tolerate that kind of attitude. In socialist societies, they would simply force you to keep your skills updated. In capitalist societies, we assume that people are aware that they can be fired any day and need to keep their skills updated.
As I said before, they've done plenty of skill-updating. The problem isn't that their skills are out-of-date, it's that the Mexicans/Chinese/whoever works a lot cheaper, so even if you need two Mexicans to do the work of one American (and in the early days of NAFTA, that wasn't unusual) you still save money.
Yes: if you lose your job, you didn't get insurance, and you don't have savings, you need to downgrade. Again, I fail to see how that is anybody's responsibility but yours.
You're conflating the vagaries of the market to personal responsibility, apparently due to a combination of cheapness ("Why should I pay for it") and a total lack of understanding. Understanding of anything, at all, really. You are the definition of the Dunning-Krueger Effect, and the ignorant crap you're repeating is a major reason life sucks for so many of the people I love. Fuck you.
As I said before, if you had anything close to a clue about what you were talking about you'd know this isn't a lack-of-skills issue. It's a too-many-skills issue. In manufacturing, in particular, US workers have to be very skilled (and thus expensive) to compete, but that means when a foreign country skills up even a little bit they can no longer compete.
And here's why you should go along with it: because there's no guarantee that in the next ten years India won't figure out how to code to the standards American businesses set. If they do you become the American with to
That statute would be the freedom version of Security Theater.
There is no way to prevent Agents of the Executive Branch from giving tips to law enforcement. It's called the First Amendment, and it applies to everyone. You could prevent them from sending actual data files from work over, but a simple phone call saying "Mr. FBI Man, you really should get a warrant to look at this phone number for drug smuggling," or "Mr. FBI Man, this guy is talking to some terrorists" cannot be prevented by statute. It's similar to the laws "forcing" you to declare the $5 bill you found on Line 21 of your tax return. Perfectly valid legally but of no effect in real life.
You spend too much time around Doctors. They're very smart, and very good at figuring out how the human body works as a system; but their cluelessness as to how the health system pays them is frankly astonishing to anyone who has to deal with them for more then 10 minutes. These are people who will, with a straight face, tell that one reason they deserve more respect then other PhDs (average salary: not $55k) is that they spent four years in pecuniary earning only $55k for their residencies.
In this case, no GPs are never going to be fired en masse. Arguments saying Nurse Practitioners are better, or a computer would be better are simply irrelevant in light of the fact that consumers want to go to see a Doctor. Since the co-pay is the same either way NPs can only gain market-share in places where there are not enough GPs. Which means that no, no hospital is going to actually fire a GP and replace him. It would be stupid business, so an MD-run hospital might try it, and if you tried you'd lose market-share to the newly opened GP partnership of three guys you fired.
Moreover, Specialists willing to work in places far from the costs make princely salaries. $500k is not unrealistic. $200k is not unusual for people whose entire job is to read test results and not talk to patients.
Let me put it to you this way, which Hospital do you think is will do better:
A) Hospital A's business model is to fire three guys making $150k, replacing them with 3 NPs making $40k. This gives them $330k to buy a computer system that has to understand the entire human body.
B) Hospital B reduces is Surgical staff by two because it can out-source all data analysis in their specialties to a computer it will buy. It has saved $1 million. It can hire all 3 GPs A) just fired and it's computer budget is $550k. Which means not only does it have a better computer, that does less (remember: instead of understanding everything as a GP does it only has to understand a couple of specialties well enough that their specialists can cut analysis a few hours a week), it also poaches most of the patients those 3 GPs saw, and it's got a great marketing angle ("see a real Doctor").
Keep in mind that Europe's numbers are mostly young people who can't find jobs in the first place. It's also not continent-wide -- all the Scandinavian states beat us, for example. Their problem is the opposite of the one I've identified. When you reduce the "Destruction" aspect of "Creative Destruction" you reduce the "Creative," which makes it harder for young people to break into the workplace.
Who said anything about potential solutions involving their employers? I'm arguing the situation sucks, and the current economy is not set up to deal with it. If you're proposing something like a couple years of cost-of-living payments, and free tuition from the Feds; that's something I'd love to explore.
As for the "arrogance," the numbers don't lie. You get fired from an UAW or UMWA job at 55 and you are almost certain to end up banging around in retail or other near-minimum wage occupations until you're 62.5, and then take your Social Security early. Going to college is not attractive because you'll be 57 before you get an Associates (59 for a Bachelors) and then you'll only have a few years to pay off the loans. In the meantime you'll have to downgrade almost everything, because you aren't making $60k a year anymore.
Keep telling yourself that.
Your wife's job is analyzing data. Given enough processing power and background data the computer will be both better at her job and cheaper. It will also be right there in the office so that they can immediately do what needs to be done, and not rely on their office manager types to get the patient back in for the bad/good news.
Now I doubt it'll happen in the next 5-10 years, but 15 years from now your wifve will be looking for a new line of work.
All a GP does to diagnose a problem is follow a flowchart. It is mostly memorized, but there is no reason that it couldn't be computerized, or even printed on paper. A nurse with a checklist implemented as an iPad app could probably diagnose most problems just as well as a doctor.
True, but in theory that nurse doesn't need either the flowchart or the iPad.
In this country we have a unique relationship with the medical field that leads to a) them being paid double what anyone else makes, b) being entrusted with actually running hospitals, etc. We're not gonna replace them wholesale with a bunch of working class women who have Associates degrees. It would probably be smart, but it is not the smart thing we do.
What I predict will happen is that smart hospitals will fire as many specialists as they can. They'll replace them with Watson-type programs and medical robots, and then spend the money they save on a combination of ego-boosting the hospital administrator and hiring enough GPs that they can spend an hour with every patient. The ego-boosting is inherent to the system, the extra GPs are to bring in lots more patients (who, remember, will respond to a advertisement with the phrase "spend an hour with your Doctor if you need it" by showing up en masses), the GPs will send many sick people to the computers, which brinhgs in huge bucks, so the administrator gets more ego-boo; which leads the administrator down the street to do the same damn thing...
Whether they're replaceable really depends on the Specialty.
If their job is to be on a team that reads a couple different charts, decides on a curse of action, and then performs a surgery, then you could probably replace everyone but one guy with computers today. That's what Watson is intended to do with many cancer specialists.
Get a decent surgical robot and now the one guy gets knocked back to part-time.
OTOH, the kind of Doctor we think of when we talk about Doctors (the GP who does your check-up and refers you to that team) we'll probably have more of them. People like their Doctor, and they don't like that they only have 20 minutes with him. The computers also need a human to interpret noisy check-up data for them. But nobody's gonna notice that last year there were six guys on the Prostate Cancer team at the local hospital, and that five of them were fired when it bought a version of Watson from IBM and a couple prostate-knowing robots.
You mean mind-numbing, back-breaking, dangerous jobs will be replaced with safer, more interesting jobs? Great! The sooner the better.
Great in economic theory. In practice we've never been good at figuring out WTF to do with a 50-year-old guy whose got no marketable skills because the robots took his job.
Believe me. I'm from Detroit. 50-year-old guys typically aren't terribly mobile because they've got families. They ain't moving to North Dakota to work the oil patch. Even if they had the income to take a few years off and get a degree a) their last experience as a student was 30 years ago, while b) if that experience hadn't sucked they probably would have gotten the degree back then.
GPs will be fine. People really like having a human Doctor. Particularly an American-accented human Doctor. Unless the Hospital can bill the insurance company extra for using the human GP they will continue to use the human GP. And the insurers aren't likely to pay extra so the hospital can replace a GP earning low six figures with a computer. Moreover computers would make really shitty GPs, as they are unable to figure out whether you have high blood pressure because you're about to die, or because you're nervous that a robot has just grabbed your fucking arm.
OTOH, many specialists entire job is reading a chart. The chart's format does not change much. Interpreting data is something computers are great at. Watson was already measurably better at reading certain specialized charts then actual Doctors back in '13. Those guys are gone. They make more then a GP does, while frequently bringing in less revenue, and the patient's aren't going to ding your Medicare quality ratings because a behind-the-scenes Doctor they'd never met got replaced by a computer.
This is just like any other skilled work that can be automated. The textile machines of the early 19th century were demonstrably worse then many weavers, but they were a) cheaper, and b) better then the average. So as of 1840 or so weaver was no longer a career option. Computers are already better then the average specialist in some fields, and they will be cheaper soon enough thanks to Moore's Law.
Question:
When you talk to actual people, and not your friend wikipedia, and you say "lawyers and doctors;" do they assume you mean the hordes of JDs punching their time-clocks deep in the bowels of a massive firm and a highly paid specialist who they see once a lifetime to get test results; or do they think you mean Trial Lawyers and their General Practitioner?
As I said in another post on this thread, a lot of medical specialists will be replaced by computers. But only in settings where patients can't notice. The GP will send you to a test site where a working class dude with an Associate's will run his diagnostic computer. Then he'll send the result to your GP, who will read it to you. You'll go to surgery where a single surgeon will oversee both the robotic surgeon and the anesthetics machine. If (at any point) you figure out that the whole process would have required an MD at the testing facility, an MD Anesthesiologist, two other surgeons on the team, each costing 500k per year; as well as a half-dozen more nurses at $40k per year, you will freak out and go to some other hospital.
It's the same in law offices. You'll always have a lawyer you talk to when you need a lawyer. You won't know that in the 80s to do what he's doing for you he would have needed a couple paralegals, a newly-minted bunny lawyer to do the boring legal research in paper books, etc.
No I mean logic. There is a very rigorous framework everyone but the Supreme Court has to follow, and you have to be able to connect every decision you make to that framework. US Courts are not allowed to do common-sense solutions such as threaten to saw a baby in half to see which person loves it more. They have to base their decision on rigorous logic.
They can include some elements of "reasonable man" judgement, but the circumstances that require Reasonable Man's judgment are pretty well-known, and it's very unusual for anyone to read a Judge's opinion on what Reasonable Man would say and disagree. On the other hand, common sense is constantly debated.
In this case it's relevant because common sense would indicate that if he has the right to do it under Fair Use, so does she. But if you actually get into the legal tests it's not that simple. There are four. I'll go through them:
1) The "did they change the work enough to count as transformative?" test. He can make this case, given the change in format, the new context, and the art communities endless ability to rationalize ridiculous BS. She is selling her version as interchangeable with his work. Either her version is a replacement for his work (and not transformative) or it isn't. I give him a 50% chance of winning this test (at best), but she simply can't.
2) This is the test where they apply special rules to factual works, unpublished works, etc. It is irrelevant to this case.
3) The test of how much of the copyrighted work was taken for the copy. In both cases it was 100%. But it only applies if the other three tests are tripped. If he can skate on tests one and four he's fine, and we've established he might be able to skate on test one. She didn't pass test one, so the fact that her work includes 100% of his means she's fucked.
4) The test of the actual damage done to the original work's market. The work he copied is a Instagram post which she may not have retained copyright on. Even if she's making money off it, it's impossible to claim that her income from selling mas-produced copies of it on the internet would be reduced by him selling a single copy for $90k. And as I pointed out back in test one, her entire marketing pitch is "pay this $90 rather then the $90,000 that asshole charges," which makes it rather difficult for her to claim she isn't actively trying to destroy the market for his work.
The article actually describes a case in which he took somebody else's photos from a book, made some small (but noticeable) changes, and then sold them for millions. Once he convinced the Appeals Court he'd passed the first test, the rest were irrelevant, and he forced a favorable settlement. I suspect he'd have trouble proving the first test in this case, as he didn't actually change anything about the images themselves, but he's got the kind of money to hire some really good lawyers.
So yes, the Courts are 100% logic, and that logic could easily turn into an extremely unsensible verdict for our poor Suicide Girl.
Any other job that's working class and involves making real money will be automated sooner rather then later, as (at least in the States) working class guys have very little ability to stop their employer from replacing them with machines.
Cashier at a store will probably be around for awhile, particularly in bad neighborhoods. They're much better at catching shoplifters then a self-checkout line is. But a lot of the back of the store jobs will either go away or turn into "dude who fixes the robot who puts shit on the shelves" type gigs.
I suspect quite a few other jobs behind the scenes will be automated. For example, why have a human X-Ray Tech analyze your pictures when computer image analysis is getting so much better? Heck, why have a team of Medical Specialists who make ($500k a year each) when a computer program can read the data and do the work?
"Requires the mind?" That's the biggest oversimplification on this thread yet.
50 years ago the hordes of people who worked in analysis departments with massive paper spreadsheets probably thought of themselves as knowledge workers.
Lots of people will be replaced. The ones least likely to be replaced are a) socially prestigious, or b) in jobs that require direct interaction with humans. So lawyers and Doctors are safer then anyone else.
You're missing about three assumptions: there are four tests, not one. Specifically they are:
1) Is the purpose of the new work different (ie: is it transformed?).
2) The specific nature of the work (you have more right to crib from a biography or a scientific paper then you do from a Novel).
3) The amount of the work used.
4) Whether the new work undercuts the market for the old work.
Test 2 doesn't come into play in this dispute because they're not arguing about the special works that count (unpublished works, factual works, etc.). If he's got a valid argument the work was transformed under Test 1 and isn't messing with the market for her work under Test 4 the Courts ignore Test 3. He actually won a case on this exact line of arguments before.
OTOH, her marketing is that she's trying to under-cut the market for his work, which means she has conceded test 4. It also means that the transformation under Test 1 is questionable, because you can't simultaneously claim that your art is so much like his art that they''re interchangeable and claim you've fundamentally changed it. Which brings Test 3 back into play, and she fails that one because 100% of his work is in her work.
Now all this is assuming he wins the point on Test 1. In the case I mentioned you could actually tell the altered Prince version from the original, unaltered, Cariou version, at a glance. He'd do shit like notice the dude in the black and white photo had his arms at the correct angle to be holding an electric guitar, and he'd add a purple guitar. In this case it's a lot trickier to tell the difference because you'd have to know the usernames he used for his comments.
Moreover the potential plaintiffs, who mostly seem to be pretty young American woman (at least one, SuicideGirls, run their own business, and the others are the kind of public performers who run their lives like it's a business), are the kind of people Courts go out of their way to be fair to. Cariou is an art-photographer obscure enough that he doesn't even have his own wikipedia page.
That would be one angle the Court could follow. But I doubt it. It's too much common sense, and not enough logic. "Turnabout is fair play" is only a well-rocognized legal principle in courtroom dramas.
I suspect if this ends up in Court (and I doubt it will), the Suicide Girls would have a pretty good case because you can't tell who created which photo without reading some mighty fine print. The case he won you could easily tell which photos were his re-appropriations because he did shit like add a purple guitar to a black and white photo. And I sincerely doubt any Judge wants to create a precedent that could be used for movie production companies to stiff musicians on royalties for their songs.
Fear of doing something stupid that the Supreme Court has to over-rule is even more important to the Judicial system then logic.
Strictly speaking it hasn't been ruled "transformative" by the Courts yet. He hasn't even been sued.
That said, that is the argument he'd likely make in Court and he could easily win it.
Always remember the law is about rigorous logic. It has absolutely nothing to do with common sense.
There are entire schools of art dedicated to "transforming" ordinary objects by putting them in galleries so everyone can speculate about what precisely you meant when you decided to put your unmade bed, a couple condoms, and dirty underwear on a pedestal in a gallery. So plenty of people will defend his work as "transformative" solely because he printed the photos out on really big paper and put them on the wall of a gallery. The Courts actually bought a similar argument in his last legal kerfuffle because his extremely expensive work was unlikely to affect the market for the the down-market originals, and Instagram isn't exactly high end. By the same token they could easily rule that her re-appropriation of his appropriation is not fair use because a) she's explicitly trying to undercut his market, and b) the product is virtually identical.
That said, in that last case he actually changed the photos to the extent you can tell the original from the Richard Prince version at a glance. You can't do that in this case.
Keep in mind that to many artists the place you see an object is a big part of the work. Simply by converting the photos from an electronic format on Instagram into large canvas prints in a gallery he transformed the works. There are actually entire schools of art devoted to taking random shit, placing them in galleries, so everyone can stand around speculating about what you meant when you decided to display your bed*. And if if the new photo counts as a transformation then it's a completely new work and the original owner's copyright does not apply. In other words he can almost certainly get as many Doctors of the Fine Arts as he wants to write impassioned essays defending his right to do this shit.
Always remember: the law is 100% logic, 0% common sense.
That said, I'm pretty skeptical that the Courts would buy it. The case he won he actually changed a guy's pictures to the point that you can instantly tell the Prince version from the Cariou original even when both of them are digital reproductions on your monitor.
*The bed in question sold for 150k GBP top a collector, who just sold it for $4,351,969 so clearly this bed is art and not pretentious BS from lazy people who mistake a tendency to over-analyze with intelligent commentary.
Most of the ones on eBay are Russian.
I suspect what he was saying is that Western equipment is way better (our electronics were orders of magnitude better even back when they were a superpower).
Of course if it's below minimum feature set then all cars are below minimum feature set because nobody has a system like this installed by default.
BTW, I suggest you read the article. The "self-parking" thing is apparently a lost-in-translation moment. The Journalists in question are Spanish speakers from the Dominican Republic, while the ones quoted in Slashdot are Anglophones. The car does have that self-parking feature, but the video is not near a parking spot, and the car is clearly not trying to park (ie: it's not in reverse). It's jumping forward at very high speed. The Volvo engineer was trying to tell the Journalist that a) this has nothing to do with self-parking, b) the feature they were trying to test was apparently not present on this car, and c) even if it had been it would have been disabled because the driver floored. When that happens, the accelerator every driving assistance system in the world will assume that it's supposed to turn itself off so the car can go forward really really fast.