People keep complaining about stuff like this without realizing that no one is forcing artists to list themselves on Pandora at all.
You don't have to put your music on their service. At all.
If you did put your music on their service then you agreed to whatever their rate was at that time.
END OF STORY SHUT THE FUCK UP.
If you don't like the rate now, then tell that to pandora and if they don't give you more money then either suck it up or leave.
Again... End of fucking story.
Let me put the prices in some perspective. I can go to Youtube, search any song by just about anyone, and find that song often listed by the publisher of that artist... and I can listen to that song over and over again for free.
So... Where is the money coming from that pays these artists? The ad revenue from non paying users? On a per ad basis you're talking about a tiny amount of money. And then you have to keep in mind that a user could listen to several songs between each ad. Which means that ad revenue has to be split between all those artists and that is only after Pandora has gotten enough to meet their bottom line. All things considered, the price is not unreasonable.
Does it suck that artists aren't making the record company money they used to make? Perhaps... but that's over and done with. The day of the rock god is over. Accept it.
If you want to be a professional musician these days then you have to crowd fund yourself. Set up a website, distribute exclusive content through it, do fan requests, interact with your users, and try to sustain yourself with a subscription model if you can. That... or try to sustain yourself with live performances. The record deals are gone. You're not going to buy yourself islands with your guitar unless you're very lucky.
The amount of light that you'd have to reflect to counter even the most extreme climate change models is so minor that it is unlikely to be noticeable with the human eye in anything but the most extreme circumstances. Picking it out of a sunset for example might be possible but otherwise... no. Maybe if you had some scientific equipment... but with the naked human eye with the sun high above? Unlikely.
You're painting a one sided story here. Don't forget the IPCC was caught citing a climbing magazine for evidence that the Himalayas were melting. And yet you expect people to take them seriously.
What is more, this sort of discussion is not productive if what you want is a scientific discussion. Your position here and this argument is inherently political. And that means you are pulling the discussion in a political direction. If you do that... the science doesn't matter.
Let me repeat this.
If you make a political argument - THE SCIENCE DOES NOT MATTER.
It just becomes politics.
If you want to have a scientific discussion, then have a scientific discussion. Science doesn't have anything to do with who is making the argument. A hobo on the street could say something more scientifically valid then anyone you could name. The arguments stand and fall on their own merits. You say this guy pushes garbage science that gets torn apart by his peers? Okay... but that is a political argument. The scientific argument is to simply continue to tear apart his arguments SCIENTIFICALLY.
The means ARE the ends. Everything is the consequence of the process.
If you win this argument via political means then science will not have won... politics will have won. And if politics win scientific discussions then you will be setting a precedent that that in anything controversial science should be entirely ignored and both sides should just cut right to the political arguments.
I really don't understand why so many people don't grasp what they're doing when they reflexively resort to political arguments.
Stop. Back out. See the big picture here. It is precisely this reflexive political strategy that has caused the AGW issue to become such a shit show. I know you don't want to hear this and you're just going to say "but its all the other political faction's fault"... It isn't. You're every bit as much to blame as they are here. You're making political arguments... not just you but a lot of people that support AGW... and those political arguments undermine the science by making the issue political.
Here you might say "but I had to make it political because X"... then the science is irrelevant and never can be relevant. Game over for science in this issue.
Or you can back off... and just patiently be scientific about it. That will require common courtesy, open debate, the due process of investigating evidence and evaluating arguments. And most importantly an open mind.
If you can't do that... then Al Gore was almost right when he said the science settled. Rather, the science will just be irrelevant because the politics will be the only thing that matters anymore.
It will just be which ever side gets more votes. That isn't science.
Bill Nye is in no position to brow beat CS grads or even farmers. His degree is in what again? Exactly. He might be agreeing with people that have certain degrees but he doesn't have those degrees himself.
Why Bill Nye is considered relevant in this is baffling. The guy was a children's science entertainer. That's his sole distinction at anything. He dressed in silly outfits and then acted absurdly excited when he poured vinegar into baking soda.
My issue is not with whatever he's saying about AGW... the issue is that he's considered a relevant opinion on the matter. His opinion is no more noteworthy then mine... unless we're considering being on TV as a reason to listen to someone. In which case, why don't we ask Justin Bieber about the middle east peace process. Or we could ask Snoop Dog about quantitative easing from the Fed.
Enough. I don't care what Bill Nye said about anything and I don't care what the phoney scientist celebrities have to say about thing. They're neither interesting nor constructive. Enough. If the journalists are so fucking lazy that they can't contact someone that is an actual scientist on these issues then kindly out of business.
Then talk about the evidence. When you make it political then the discussion becomes political. And when that happens your evidence becomes worthless unless it is politically useful.
This is something I think a lot of people have a very hard time with...
The means are the ends. Think about that.
The outcomes are the consequences of the actions taken to achieve them.
The house is built brick by brick out of the specific bricks you're laying.
Point? If you're house is built out of political bricks... if the arguments are made by politicians and pushed by lawyers and the consequences of laws and PR campaigns... then you built a house out of politics, lawyers, and PR.
Is that what you want to do or do you want to build this house out of science?
Because if you want to do that... then you're going to have to make your bricks out of science and not politics. Which means all the political bullshit gets put back into the fucking box it came out of and we can just talk about the science.
Refuse to do this... and its just politics. Nothing different from a million other political issues and science just doesn't even begin to fucking matter.
No one is going to charge you with a crime unless they know that you did it and that means you decide when it becomes relevant.
I record every call. Every single one. Then once a month I delete them all. Easy peasy. The only people I've told that I recorded were the people at Time Warner Cable, the people at AT&T Business class Fiber, and the people at Comcast. Each of these groups said one thing and then tried to do another. So... I told them that I recorded them previously and without exception every single one of them modified their behavior without even having to hear the recording. They told me I had to give them money or they weren't going to install something or that my monthly service didn't include something... and in every case they just gave me what I wanted.
And if they didn't give me what I wanted, I was going to replay the recording for them or someone else at their company to give them a last chance to give me what had been agreed. And if they didn't do that, I was going to post it on the internet hopefully creating a PR nightmare for them that would exceed the cost of just doing the right thing.
That's how I operate. And that's how everyone should operate. I don't see how I or anyone else is exposing themselves to legal liability or criminal prosecution. What are they going to say? You didn't ask our customer service rep that informed you that YOU were being recorded that you were also recording them? That should go down really well when it hits the newspapers and possibly gets a US congressman on a select committee asking them questions.
The corporations are going to avoid those risks. If they agreed to something it is usually in the records. They lie about stuff because their managers have told them that lying is a form of negotiation. If you have the calls recorded then they that closes off that avenue of negotiation which means they should just give you whatever they agreed to give you.
... Science as pop stars do about geopolitics. It is always painful to listen to some pop star lecture people about the middle east or the economic policy of the Fed. It is no less annoying when a television entertainer tries to browbeat basically everyone by suggesting that he's in some elite cliche of thinkers... when really he was paid to put on funny outfits and act WAY too excited about pouring baking soda into vinegar.
Bill Nye is a poor man's Mr Wizard. Anyone remember Mr Wizard? Way better. And everyone notice how Mr Wizard has spent years acting like the smartest man in the universe long after he stopped even doing his show? Me neither. Get over yourself, Bill. You're not half as smart as you think you are and if the software engineers don't get it then you don't either.
I'll take my chances... and in any case they always record me so I figure it has to be legal to record them if they're recording me.
What is more, these stupid companies don't want a PR nightmare. if they sue me for recording them in a customer service call then they're fucked. So... Again... they can make my day.
The irony of all these people damning voices in science for political reasons and then wondering why science has taken a back seat to politics is rather shocking.
The means are the end. The end result is the consequence of the process. The cause leads to the effect.
If people keep arguing against voices on this issue using political arguments then they can only win or lose using politics. If they restrained their arguments to scientific arguments then the resulting process would be a scientific one.
When you let politicians, lobbyists, and PR companies run the debate then no one should be surprised when the result is a political crap storm with little scientific value.
We're not all equal, sport. Some people are going to be better at some tasks and some are going to be just better period.
If you're on a team with Issac Newton, then you're not going to be on his level. It isn't going to happen. You're going to assist him... possibly making the man sandwiches.
This is an irritating conversation. You're not getting the point.
Expert systems are tools. They will do things that previously took a human being but which didn't take a lot of skill or brain power. Something simple yet difficult to explain or program or simply not worth it because it might be a one time thing... but you have one time things that are simple happening all the time.
If you can't see where this would be useful then you lack either experience or imagination. No offense. But this conversation is now boring.
... Shouldn't throw stones. Anyone that says people supporting AGW don't profit from that position is either a complete fuckwit or is being willfully deceitful. There is a lot of money and power being thrown around on both sides.
If it were just some plucky scientists fighting against the evil corporate interests then you wouldn't have all these UN panels, green energy inititiaves, mass media smear campaigns, large numbers of politicians on both sides, and lets not forget there are a lot of corporations that are selling products that only make sense in the context of AGW.
I'm not saying AGW is wrong and I'm not saying that people aren't paid to say it isn't real. Rather, I'm saying that you gain no moral high ground by pointing that out because that's something both sides are profoundly guilty of at this point.
And any argument that doesn't acknowledge that fact is either fatally inaccurate or intentional propaganda.
Show me when a person clearly over 18 can possibly not be entitled to buy alchohol?
Half the reason the evidence is often scanty is that there is no investigation and no mechanism in place to investigate it.
An example of something similar would be that in Japan unsolved murders are often cited as "accidental deaths" even when they were clearly murders. The reason being that it looks better on the crime statistics. It is a big problem in Japan to have unsolved murders. It is also partially why their suicide rate is so high... many of their suicides are not suicides at all but merely murders that the police couldn't figure out.
There is no mechanism in place to check for such fraud and all attempts to check for it are met with idiotic comments like the ones you're making.
You're saying that I have to show a murder happened before you'll hire detectives to investigate whether murders have happened. It is a catch 22 that only confuses the stupid.
You are backing a policy that puts a higher burden of identification on someone checking a book out from a library or buying a beer then voting for national politicians that have the power to declare wars or change the basic laws of our society.
It is beyond idiotic. You either have your head terminally up your own ass... as in you've apparently asphyxiated from lack of oxygen up there or you're just lying. Either way... I have no patience for this discussion. Its too fucking stupid.
You're right... all coding is deeply cerebral work that requires only the highest levels of human intelligence and creativity. None of it is derivative or largely a matter of connecting A to B over and fucking over again.
Obviously a good deal of coding and especially debugging is a matter of going through and actualizing a simple objective that tends to involve a lot iteration. There is also a lot of checking to make sure the thing you thought was happening is actually happening... and especially if that thing is happening not just today but over the long term if the program runs for awhile.
These AI systems are basically going to be helpers. These will be things that programmers use as TOOLS in the future to help them write code more quickly and possibly more accurately.
We saw there was a company that was hiring autistic people to debug code because they weren't bored by sitting there going through huge code bases line by line and checking each line as well as they checked the first line.
Well... AI systems could be as good at doing that sort of work while not involving paying people.
These guys are all worried about people pirating their appliances and manufactured goods. But really most of what they make isn't that innovative. I mean, an open source refrigerator isn't going to work any worse then theirs really.
This guy is talking like anyone gives a crap if they use THEIR design. But who really does actually care? Imagine all the things you own and imagine they were all things that came out of 3d printers, assembled, and had some motors and electronics glued into them. Who needs to steal the design in the first place?
What is more, their patients only go for 17 years or something. So anything older then that could be copied verbatim.
The virtue is that when I tell these people that the call was recorded... they suddenly get more cooperative. Its actually pretty awesome. I don't even need to play the recording to them to prove my point. I just tell them that I had a previous conversation with them, tell them what that was, and then tell them I recorded it. Which I did... but not one of them has asked to listen to it. They just submit.
I've gotten a lot of refunds and credits on my account that way.
Try it. First, get one of the apps for your phone that records calls... enable it... make your calls... and then when they start feeding you double talk... you tell them that the calls were recorded. They'll just give you whatever you're owed in most cases.
Answer this question NOW with no further evasions.
Why do you think it is appropriate to have more ID checks for someone to buy beer then vote in a national election?
Answer the question. Your political faction has been exploiting weaknesses in our polling system for generations and the evasions at this point are just bred into your bones at this point.
Answer this very simple question or you are admitting I am right.
Agreed. That is the point. However, a lot of coding is busy work. And by throwing more expert systems and AIs at the issue most of the busy work should go away.
if your job as a coder is to do the busy work... then you're going to get your job threatened by these systems.
If they're more like you and you don't do that sort of thing, then these expert systems and AIs are no threat to you.
As to cellphones, you're focusing on a transitioning market. You have to wait for it to stablize before you make those sorts of comments. Already we can see it stabilizing. Once the phones do everything you need them to do and do it well enough that you don't care... then it becomes harder to push the new model.
What is more we have products phoneblocks that could make phones entirely modular.
As to your comment on 100 percent automation... that's nonsense. You're assuming mass coordination. If I can 100 percent automate my business then I'm obviously going to do it. It would be stupid for me to do anything else. What other business owners do is their own problem.
What is more, automated systems can buy goods and services from other automated systems, and that can feed back to resource production/procurement which allows me to get access to goods and services I want...
Just as most people don't care if their goods come from china, or their software is written in india, no one is going to care if the companies are 100 percent automated or not.
You act as if money ceases to have value if a robot earns or spends it. Look at the high volume trading computers. They trade stocks and bonds and futures back at each other at lightning speed... there are no humans in that market. Just programs kicking money around. If the entire trading house were 100 percent automated it wouldn't change anything. The systems would make or lose money and their investors would profit or lose. And those investors could likewise just be more programs.
As to your notion that because certain jobs disappear people must be out of work forever... no. We're just transitioning out of the industrial age and into the information age. It is painful for those caught between. At one time upwards of 80 percent of all labor was concerned with agriculture. Today it is between 5 and 10 percent. What happened to the jobs? They went to work in factories. And a lot of offices are even work on computers is still factory work. You get into your little cubicles and work like line operators. Its all based on industrial assembly. And it worked until the programs started getting clever enough that it ceased to be efficient.
You will have a job in the future. It just won't be a factory job. The factory jobs are going to go away. And again, you can work in an office building in a cubicle... and still be a factory worker. You're just processing paper work instead of machine parts. Its the same organizational chart. And its dead.
We are in the transition... it will be painful. A bit of socialism and people on the dole isn't unreasonable in this period. At the same period between the agricultural and industrial people starved while working full time jobs.
We are transitioning. It will be scary, painful, confusing, and some people are not going to be useful when all is said and done. But that is going to be temporary. That is their generation. The generations to come will adapt. The businesses to come will adapt. Labor will be used differently. The factory employee will become an increasing rarity. And frankly I won't miss it.
Factory work is dehumanizing. Who likes standing and pretending to be a machine? That is all factory work is or ever has been... the human being used as a substitute for more sophisticated machines that are either too expensive or have yet to be invented.
All that is happening is that the machines got cheaper and better... and so the factory work is disappearing. The information work is what is left. And with the efficiency gains elsewhere in the economy we can afford to hire a lot of people to do that sort of work. You don't even have to be especially smart. Just more dynamic then the machine. Might some people not be able to do even that?
Sure... and some manual labor positions will remain for some time... as well as various other make work positions. I wouldn't worry about it. Genetic engineering is a couple generations away and when that plus the cybernetic research combines the least of our worries will be the limitations of human intelligence. What human intelligence even means after that will be something better described by Moore's law then anything.
A lot of coding is busy work. And I'm sure the AIs can do a lot of it. But who hasn't been sitting there doing it and thought "I'm too smart to be doing this stupid job."... because that happens all the time for a lot of people in a lot of jobs. And yeah... a computer or a monkey could do those jobs so long as they were taught how to do the trick.
But the nifty problem solving that only humans are still capable of doing? That's a different matter.
Rather then getting all upset about people losing jobs they hate to machines rejoice that the jobs of the future will be more interesting because the only things you'll need humans for will be more interesting work.
Here someone will say "but there are a lot of stupid humans that can't do interesting work!"... yes and no. A stupid human isn't going to do anything that requires high level human intelligence. But even low level human intelligence is actually very useful if properly applied.
At some point, low human intelligence is going to be a barrier to entry to the job market. But really, it is already a huge problem for someone if they're stupid. Lots of jobs simply are closed to them and that is likely going to get worse going forward.
Anyway, I'm not worried about it. I'm just looking forward to the expert systems that I can use to help me cut out the busy work in my coding. Sounds like fun.
Slashdot Mirror
People keep complaining about stuff like this without realizing that no one is forcing artists to list themselves on Pandora at all.
You don't have to put your music on their service. At all.
If you did put your music on their service then you agreed to whatever their rate was at that time.
END OF STORY SHUT THE FUCK UP.
If you don't like the rate now, then tell that to pandora and if they don't give you more money then either suck it up or leave.
Again... End of fucking story.
Let me put the prices in some perspective. I can go to Youtube, search any song by just about anyone, and find that song often listed by the publisher of that artist... and I can listen to that song over and over again for free.
So... Where is the money coming from that pays these artists? The ad revenue from non paying users? On a per ad basis you're talking about a tiny amount of money. And then you have to keep in mind that a user could listen to several songs between each ad. Which means that ad revenue has to be split between all those artists and that is only after Pandora has gotten enough to meet their bottom line. All things considered, the price is not unreasonable.
Does it suck that artists aren't making the record company money they used to make? Perhaps... but that's over and done with. The day of the rock god is over. Accept it.
If you want to be a professional musician these days then you have to crowd fund yourself. Set up a website, distribute exclusive content through it, do fan requests, interact with your users, and try to sustain yourself with a subscription model if you can. That... or try to sustain yourself with live performances. The record deals are gone. You're not going to buy yourself islands with your guitar unless you're very lucky.
The amount of light that you'd have to reflect to counter even the most extreme climate change models is so minor that it is unlikely to be noticeable with the human eye in anything but the most extreme circumstances. Picking it out of a sunset for example might be possible but otherwise... no. Maybe if you had some scientific equipment... but with the naked human eye with the sun high above? Unlikely.
You're painting a one sided story here. Don't forget the IPCC was caught citing a climbing magazine for evidence that the Himalayas were melting. And yet you expect people to take them seriously.
What is more, this sort of discussion is not productive if what you want is a scientific discussion. Your position here and this argument is inherently political. And that means you are pulling the discussion in a political direction. If you do that... the science doesn't matter.
Let me repeat this.
If you make a political argument - THE SCIENCE DOES NOT MATTER.
It just becomes politics.
If you want to have a scientific discussion, then have a scientific discussion. Science doesn't have anything to do with who is making the argument. A hobo on the street could say something more scientifically valid then anyone you could name. The arguments stand and fall on their own merits. You say this guy pushes garbage science that gets torn apart by his peers? Okay... but that is a political argument. The scientific argument is to simply continue to tear apart his arguments SCIENTIFICALLY.
The means ARE the ends. Everything is the consequence of the process.
If you win this argument via political means then science will not have won... politics will have won. And if politics win scientific discussions then you will be setting a precedent that that in anything controversial science should be entirely ignored and both sides should just cut right to the political arguments.
I really don't understand why so many people don't grasp what they're doing when they reflexively resort to political arguments.
Stop. Back out. See the big picture here. It is precisely this reflexive political strategy that has caused the AGW issue to become such a shit show. I know you don't want to hear this and you're just going to say "but its all the other political faction's fault"... It isn't. You're every bit as much to blame as they are here. You're making political arguments... not just you but a lot of people that support AGW... and those political arguments undermine the science by making the issue political.
Here you might say "but I had to make it political because X"... then the science is irrelevant and never can be relevant. Game over for science in this issue.
Or you can back off... and just patiently be scientific about it. That will require common courtesy, open debate, the due process of investigating evidence and evaluating arguments. And most importantly an open mind.
If you can't do that... then Al Gore was almost right when he said the science settled. Rather, the science will just be irrelevant because the politics will be the only thing that matters anymore.
It will just be which ever side gets more votes. That isn't science.
Bill Nye is in no position to brow beat CS grads or even farmers. His degree is in what again? Exactly. He might be agreeing with people that have certain degrees but he doesn't have those degrees himself.
Why Bill Nye is considered relevant in this is baffling. The guy was a children's science entertainer. That's his sole distinction at anything. He dressed in silly outfits and then acted absurdly excited when he poured vinegar into baking soda.
My issue is not with whatever he's saying about AGW... the issue is that he's considered a relevant opinion on the matter. His opinion is no more noteworthy then mine... unless we're considering being on TV as a reason to listen to someone. In which case, why don't we ask Justin Bieber about the middle east peace process. Or we could ask Snoop Dog about quantitative easing from the Fed.
Enough. I don't care what Bill Nye said about anything and I don't care what the phoney scientist celebrities have to say about thing. They're neither interesting nor constructive. Enough. If the journalists are so fucking lazy that they can't contact someone that is an actual scientist on these issues then kindly out of business.
Would that be me that is hating or would that be Bill that is hating? Both of us? Your comment was vague.
Then talk about the evidence. When you make it political then the discussion becomes political. And when that happens your evidence becomes worthless unless it is politically useful.
This is something I think a lot of people have a very hard time with...
The means are the ends. Think about that.
The outcomes are the consequences of the actions taken to achieve them.
The house is built brick by brick out of the specific bricks you're laying.
Point? If you're house is built out of political bricks... if the arguments are made by politicians and pushed by lawyers and the consequences of laws and PR campaigns... then you built a house out of politics, lawyers, and PR.
Is that what you want to do or do you want to build this house out of science?
Because if you want to do that... then you're going to have to make your bricks out of science and not politics. Which means all the political bullshit gets put back into the fucking box it came out of and we can just talk about the science.
Refuse to do this... and its just politics. Nothing different from a million other political issues and science just doesn't even begin to fucking matter.
Choose.
Science or politics.
No one is going to charge you with a crime unless they know that you did it and that means you decide when it becomes relevant.
I record every call. Every single one. Then once a month I delete them all. Easy peasy. The only people I've told that I recorded were the people at Time Warner Cable, the people at AT&T Business class Fiber, and the people at Comcast. Each of these groups said one thing and then tried to do another. So... I told them that I recorded them previously and without exception every single one of them modified their behavior without even having to hear the recording. They told me I had to give them money or they weren't going to install something or that my monthly service didn't include something... and in every case they just gave me what I wanted.
And if they didn't give me what I wanted, I was going to replay the recording for them or someone else at their company to give them a last chance to give me what had been agreed. And if they didn't do that, I was going to post it on the internet hopefully creating a PR nightmare for them that would exceed the cost of just doing the right thing.
That's how I operate. And that's how everyone should operate. I don't see how I or anyone else is exposing themselves to legal liability or criminal prosecution. What are they going to say? You didn't ask our customer service rep that informed you that YOU were being recorded that you were also recording them? That should go down really well when it hits the newspapers and possibly gets a US congressman on a select committee asking them questions.
The corporations are going to avoid those risks. If they agreed to something it is usually in the records. They lie about stuff because their managers have told them that lying is a form of negotiation. If you have the calls recorded then they that closes off that avenue of negotiation which means they should just give you whatever they agreed to give you.
... Science as pop stars do about geopolitics. It is always painful to listen to some pop star lecture people about the middle east or the economic policy of the Fed. It is no less annoying when a television entertainer tries to browbeat basically everyone by suggesting that he's in some elite cliche of thinkers... when really he was paid to put on funny outfits and act WAY too excited about pouring baking soda into vinegar.
Bill Nye is a poor man's Mr Wizard. Anyone remember Mr Wizard? Way better. And everyone notice how Mr Wizard has spent years acting like the smartest man in the universe long after he stopped even doing his show? Me neither. Get over yourself, Bill. You're not half as smart as you think you are and if the software engineers don't get it then you don't either.
Only commenting because people are still rating me up and down here... just out of curosity... can I have my "gender" be "unicorn"?
And if not... isn't that unicornphobic?
I'll take my chances... and in any case they always record me so I figure it has to be legal to record them if they're recording me.
What is more, these stupid companies don't want a PR nightmare. if they sue me for recording them in a customer service call then they're fucked. So... Again... they can make my day.
Well said.
The irony of all these people damning voices in science for political reasons and then wondering why science has taken a back seat to politics is rather shocking.
The means are the end. The end result is the consequence of the process. The cause leads to the effect.
If people keep arguing against voices on this issue using political arguments then they can only win or lose using politics. If they restrained their arguments to scientific arguments then the resulting process would be a scientific one.
When you let politicians, lobbyists, and PR companies run the debate then no one should be surprised when the result is a political crap storm with little scientific value.
We're not all equal, sport. Some people are going to be better at some tasks and some are going to be just better period.
If you're on a team with Issac Newton, then you're not going to be on his level. It isn't going to happen. You're going to assist him... possibly making the man sandwiches.
This is an irritating conversation. You're not getting the point.
Expert systems are tools. They will do things that previously took a human being but which didn't take a lot of skill or brain power. Something simple yet difficult to explain or program or simply not worth it because it might be a one time thing... but you have one time things that are simple happening all the time.
If you can't see where this would be useful then you lack either experience or imagination. No offense. But this conversation is now boring.
Good day.
I'm asked for ID every time and so is my father. So... no.
... Shouldn't throw stones. Anyone that says people supporting AGW don't profit from that position is either a complete fuckwit or is being willfully deceitful. There is a lot of money and power being thrown around on both sides.
If it were just some plucky scientists fighting against the evil corporate interests then you wouldn't have all these UN panels, green energy inititiaves, mass media smear campaigns, large numbers of politicians on both sides, and lets not forget there are a lot of corporations that are selling products that only make sense in the context of AGW.
I'm not saying AGW is wrong and I'm not saying that people aren't paid to say it isn't real. Rather, I'm saying that you gain no moral high ground by pointing that out because that's something both sides are profoundly guilty of at this point.
And any argument that doesn't acknowledge that fact is either fatally inaccurate or intentional propaganda.
Show me when a person clearly over 18 can possibly not be entitled to buy alchohol?
Half the reason the evidence is often scanty is that there is no investigation and no mechanism in place to investigate it.
An example of something similar would be that in Japan unsolved murders are often cited as "accidental deaths" even when they were clearly murders. The reason being that it looks better on the crime statistics. It is a big problem in Japan to have unsolved murders. It is also partially why their suicide rate is so high... many of their suicides are not suicides at all but merely murders that the police couldn't figure out.
There is no mechanism in place to check for such fraud and all attempts to check for it are met with idiotic comments like the ones you're making.
You're saying that I have to show a murder happened before you'll hire detectives to investigate whether murders have happened. It is a catch 22 that only confuses the stupid.
You are backing a policy that puts a higher burden of identification on someone checking a book out from a library or buying a beer then voting for national politicians that have the power to declare wars or change the basic laws of our society.
It is beyond idiotic. You either have your head terminally up your own ass... as in you've apparently asphyxiated from lack of oxygen up there or you're just lying. Either way... I have no patience for this discussion. Its too fucking stupid.
What task would you give to the least experienced member of a coding team?
Bingo.
I win.
You just said it should require a photo ID to buy beer but no such thing required when you vote.
Checkmate. We're done.
*walks off*
You're right... all coding is deeply cerebral work that requires only the highest levels of human intelligence and creativity. None of it is derivative or largely a matter of connecting A to B over and fucking over again.
Obviously a good deal of coding and especially debugging is a matter of going through and actualizing a simple objective that tends to involve a lot iteration. There is also a lot of checking to make sure the thing you thought was happening is actually happening... and especially if that thing is happening not just today but over the long term if the program runs for awhile.
These AI systems are basically going to be helpers. These will be things that programmers use as TOOLS in the future to help them write code more quickly and possibly more accurately.
We saw there was a company that was hiring autistic people to debug code because they weren't bored by sitting there going through huge code bases line by line and checking each line as well as they checked the first line.
Well... AI systems could be as good at doing that sort of work while not involving paying people.
These guys are all worried about people pirating their appliances and manufactured goods. But really most of what they make isn't that innovative. I mean, an open source refrigerator isn't going to work any worse then theirs really.
This guy is talking like anyone gives a crap if they use THEIR design. But who really does actually care? Imagine all the things you own and imagine they were all things that came out of 3d printers, assembled, and had some motors and electronics glued into them. Who needs to steal the design in the first place?
What is more, their patients only go for 17 years or something. So anything older then that could be copied verbatim.
The virtue is that when I tell these people that the call was recorded... they suddenly get more cooperative. Its actually pretty awesome. I don't even need to play the recording to them to prove my point. I just tell them that I had a previous conversation with them, tell them what that was, and then tell them I recorded it. Which I did... but not one of them has asked to listen to it. They just submit.
I've gotten a lot of refunds and credits on my account that way.
Try it. First, get one of the apps for your phone that records calls... enable it... make your calls... and then when they start feeding you double talk... you tell them that the calls were recorded. They'll just give you whatever you're owed in most cases.
You're basically just lying now.
Answer this question NOW with no further evasions.
Why do you think it is appropriate to have more ID checks for someone to buy beer then vote in a national election?
Answer the question. Your political faction has been exploiting weaknesses in our polling system for generations and the evasions at this point are just bred into your bones at this point.
Answer this very simple question or you are admitting I am right.
Agreed. That is the point. However, a lot of coding is busy work. And by throwing more expert systems and AIs at the issue most of the busy work should go away.
if your job as a coder is to do the busy work... then you're going to get your job threatened by these systems.
If they're more like you and you don't do that sort of thing, then these expert systems and AIs are no threat to you.
As to cellphones, you're focusing on a transitioning market. You have to wait for it to stablize before you make those sorts of comments. Already we can see it stabilizing. Once the phones do everything you need them to do and do it well enough that you don't care... then it becomes harder to push the new model.
What is more we have products phoneblocks that could make phones entirely modular.
As to your comment on 100 percent automation... that's nonsense. You're assuming mass coordination. If I can 100 percent automate my business then I'm obviously going to do it. It would be stupid for me to do anything else. What other business owners do is their own problem.
What is more, automated systems can buy goods and services from other automated systems, and that can feed back to resource production/procurement which allows me to get access to goods and services I want...
Just as most people don't care if their goods come from china, or their software is written in india, no one is going to care if the companies are 100 percent automated or not.
You act as if money ceases to have value if a robot earns or spends it. Look at the high volume trading computers. They trade stocks and bonds and futures back at each other at lightning speed... there are no humans in that market. Just programs kicking money around. If the entire trading house were 100 percent automated it wouldn't change anything. The systems would make or lose money and their investors would profit or lose. And those investors could likewise just be more programs.
As to your notion that because certain jobs disappear people must be out of work forever... no. We're just transitioning out of the industrial age and into the information age. It is painful for those caught between. At one time upwards of 80 percent of all labor was concerned with agriculture. Today it is between 5 and 10 percent. What happened to the jobs? They went to work in factories. And a lot of offices are even work on computers is still factory work. You get into your little cubicles and work like line operators. Its all based on industrial assembly. And it worked until the programs started getting clever enough that it ceased to be efficient.
You will have a job in the future. It just won't be a factory job. The factory jobs are going to go away. And again, you can work in an office building in a cubicle... and still be a factory worker. You're just processing paper work instead of machine parts. Its the same organizational chart. And its dead.
We are in the transition... it will be painful. A bit of socialism and people on the dole isn't unreasonable in this period. At the same period between the agricultural and industrial people starved while working full time jobs.
We are transitioning. It will be scary, painful, confusing, and some people are not going to be useful when all is said and done. But that is going to be temporary. That is their generation. The generations to come will adapt. The businesses to come will adapt. Labor will be used differently. The factory employee will become an increasing rarity. And frankly I won't miss it.
Factory work is dehumanizing. Who likes standing and pretending to be a machine? That is all factory work is or ever has been... the human being used as a substitute for more sophisticated machines that are either too expensive or have yet to be invented.
All that is happening is that the machines got cheaper and better... and so the factory work is disappearing. The information work is what is left. And with the efficiency gains elsewhere in the economy we can afford to hire a lot of people to do that sort of work. You don't even have to be especially smart. Just more dynamic then the machine. Might some people not be able to do even that?
Sure... and some manual labor positions will remain for some time... as well as various other make work positions. I wouldn't worry about it. Genetic engineering is a couple generations away and when that plus the cybernetic research combines the least of our worries will be the limitations of human intelligence. What human intelligence even means after that will be something better described by Moore's law then anything.
that's what these expert systems do and are... so... you're welcome.
A lot of coding is busy work. And I'm sure the AIs can do a lot of it. But who hasn't been sitting there doing it and thought "I'm too smart to be doing this stupid job."... because that happens all the time for a lot of people in a lot of jobs. And yeah... a computer or a monkey could do those jobs so long as they were taught how to do the trick.
But the nifty problem solving that only humans are still capable of doing? That's a different matter.
Rather then getting all upset about people losing jobs they hate to machines rejoice that the jobs of the future will be more interesting because the only things you'll need humans for will be more interesting work.
Here someone will say "but there are a lot of stupid humans that can't do interesting work!"... yes and no. A stupid human isn't going to do anything that requires high level human intelligence. But even low level human intelligence is actually very useful if properly applied.
At some point, low human intelligence is going to be a barrier to entry to the job market. But really, it is already a huge problem for someone if they're stupid. Lots of jobs simply are closed to them and that is likely going to get worse going forward.
Anyway, I'm not worried about it. I'm just looking forward to the expert systems that I can use to help me cut out the busy work in my coding. Sounds like fun.