Well, and my question is: take the fast food industry, if you have one robot cooking fries, and one robot serving fries- does that get taxed at twice the rate of one robot that does both?
If you have one factory that is built around one giant robot that does everything, does that get taxed the same as a robot that cooks fries?
Once you get past the question of "what is a robot", how do you determine what to tax a robot? A single robot that can smelt iron ore and take it through all the steps needed to produce coils of steel plating would be a lot more complicated than a robot that can cook fries.
Do you tax per robot, tax per value added by robot, or tax based on a percentage of the cost of the robot?
Tax laws could get very complicated very quickly, and you'll find the haves will cheat the system at the expensive of the have-nots. Just like today, big companies will know how to circumvent the biggest taxes.
I didn't say they didn't know what they were doing, I was saying they probably aren't Tech Savvy.
Net neutrality is a simple enough concept you don't need to be technically gifted to understand. However, as easy as it would be to explain. Have you ever tried explaining anything to an ideologue, and most politicians are ideologues. Capable of understanding something and willing to understand something are two different things.
I make no presumptions though as to whether these senators know what horrific thing they are doing, or if they're doing it because they chose to not be educated.
huh, with the exception of Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), none of these jugheads are from what I would consider in any way a tech state,.
I don't think there is a state in the union where every member is well versed in tech, nor a state where no member is. I don't think you can judge a senator's tech-savviness based on his home state. I'd bet 95% of politicians are not tech-savvy. They tend to be older individuals, and also come from backgrounds not dependent in tech. There are exceptions, but most of them aren't tech savvy.
He's actually quite right. Things like Facebook and Twitter and "following", even Google Now's page. It all tracks things you like and molds to an individuals viewpoint.
Most people ARE getting a very narrow view of the world now. Gone is the broad-spectrum news that people used to get. People tailormake their news to fit their specific world-view these days.
If news doesn't fit your ideology, you don't read it.
It has led to increased polarization in the political spectrum.
This was me, until this morning. I aggregated all my RSS feeds on an igHome page with multiple tabs- but they appear to have blanked out my account over the weekend- I'm just seeing generic crap now. Not my RSS feeds.
Now I need to start all over again finding my feeds.
He wants to cut all sorts of science and research budgets
The EPA isn't science, it's a Liberal and Bureaucratic propaganda and shakedown racket.
I disagree with EPA not being science. However, just for the sake of argument you are right.
As an example; Trump's Budget also calls for a 20% cut in R&D for the National Institute of Health research. 44% cut in R&D for Department of Energy.
It is not incorrect to say that Trump wants to cut science and R&D spending by the government. It is also not incorrect to say he believes Private Enterprise should be responsible for it.
You can make a political statement that he is correct politically to slash public spending on science (I would disagree), but you can't say he is for public science spending because he clearly isn't.
That Trump will finish a first term much less get reelected to a second term is as unlikely as NASA to send astronauts to Mars in the next eight years.
You underestimate the stupidity of humanity. Have you ever met people?
For the record: I am very pro humans going to Mars. I realize the hurdles, I realize the dangers. I realize we can't economically achieve it right now. I believe in the Buzz Aldrin model of an initially one way trip, I'm aware there is a high risk of life in the early days, (so should any applicant to go).
With all that said, if it takes Trump's ego to get us to Mars, I am all for that. He might actually be one of the very few men at the top willing to risk the political backlash of failure.
Even if we're going for the wrong reasons, I would be glad if we took the steps.
He wants to cut all sorts of science and research budgets, so he's obviously not in favor of public money being spend on science. In Trump's eyes science is a private enterprise thing, not a government thing.
So why does he want to go to Mars, and specifically why does he want to go during his presidency?
The answer is Ego.
He wants to be known as the President who got man to another planet. He wants the capital city on some long-in-the-future Mars to be called Trump Town.
He doesn't want to go to look for signs of life, he doesn't want to go to advance science, he doesn't want to go to see if there is any long-term investment strategy.
No malware, easy to use. Generic browser interface. They're cheap and reliable ideal for computers.
Apple are overpriced, have a User Interface almost no-one will use once they hit the corporate environment, people may have them for their home PCs, but few at work. They do have the advantage of fewer viruses. (yeah, I know if you're doing art stuff, and wearing sunglasses indoors, you may use a Mac in your office- but I'm talking about the majority of people).
Microsoft products would be a midlevel price and a User Interface worth learning from the standpoint, they will probably be using MS for most of their careers. The problem is, Microsoft gets expensive with maintenance and preventing the kids doing stupid things and downloading viruses.
For kids and schools, Chromebook just make way more sense.
Even if the technology were ready right now at this moment, adapting it to replace half of all jobs would still take more than ten years. There are plenty of things that can easily be done by computer, that are not, because it takes time and money to get them ready to use.
I would say a combination of robotics, computers, automation, and a very rudimentary pseudo-AI has already taken well over 50% of jobs. The thing is, new jobs have been created.
If you go back to the 80's and earlier, manufacturing was a huge portion of the job market. Relatively, few people work "in the factory" now. Even office jobs became more efficient with computers.
We don't have 50% unemployment because the market adapted, we switched to a post-industrial, service oriented economy. That can't last forever though. Not if machines can start taking over service jobs too. The economy may adapt again, and people find jobs in other sectors, or we may start seeing high levels of unemployment. I'm not Nostradamus so I can't tell you.
Frequently when jobs are lost, others are created;.it's just, not at the same rate.
Holy crap! Who the F would pay $10 each way on a toll? It costs me $20 to fill my little Honda up with fuel, your proposed toll would cost me an entire week's would of fuel in one day's worth of tolls.
$10 a trip toll would never fly, no one would pay that much to commute one way to work each day.
Today, but I worry that tomorrow that won't be an option, you'll pay premium price for adware pre-installed with no option to remove it. Kind of like cable I pay a subscription fee {actually I don't have cable anymore} and then get blasted with advertising anyway.
It's possible, but it would have to be at an Operating System level. Right now there are literally dozens of companies branding their own tablets, no-one could get away with it easily.
Operating systems there are only 2 big players (3 if you count MS). Forced ads would most likely be introduced at the OS level if at all. (or by an ISP hijacking your connection)
If you're in IT, you better be an asshole or nothing will ever get done.
Not where I work. I've worked places where people got let go for no other reason than being an asshole. (naturally, that isn't how it was worded to them, but everyone knows that that is the real reason).
The most common reason they gave for their departures was workplace mistreatment.
If that reason is given more often by women and minorities then it is whites and men... perhaps companies ARE mistreating women and minorities which WOULD make it the company's fault.
It's possible that those groups just "perceive" mistreatment more often, or they could actually be being mistreated more.
Being the perennial centrist, on-the-fence person that I am- I don't know which is the real reason.
When I buy a tablet I would prefer not to have to pay extra to get it without adware pre-installed like the fire tablet.
So would I, so would everyone.
Truth is though, the existence of the ad-supported tablet probably doesn't greatly affect the price of the ad-free tablet. If the ad-supported tablet didn't exist I don't think many people would be complaining about the cost of the ad-free tablet; it is priced competitively with other similar quality build/feature models.
They didn't bump the price of the ad-free model- they put a discount on the ad model because they expected to make more than the $20 difference selling advertising to your eyes over the life of the product. They forwent revenue today for more revenue in the future.
If you don't want Amazon to buy the rights to force feed you ads on a tablet, don't buy the ad supported tablet, buy the regularly priced one.
Slashdot Mirror
But I don't think cat beheadings were part of their plans.
That can only be the work of the jihadi terrorist group MICE-IS
Sounds like a job for anyone who ever said "I want to be paid for watching Cat Videos"
In the South during slavery days they taxed slaves. Robots are the mechanical version.
And when a robot becomes intelligent enough to be self aware. Where will we draw the line between robot and slave?
Well, and my question is: take the fast food industry, if you have one robot cooking fries, and one robot serving fries- does that get taxed at twice the rate of one robot that does both?
If you have one factory that is built around one giant robot that does everything, does that get taxed the same as a robot that cooks fries?
Once you get past the question of "what is a robot", how do you determine what to tax a robot? A single robot that can smelt iron ore and take it through all the steps needed to produce coils of steel plating would be a lot more complicated than a robot that can cook fries.
Do you tax per robot, tax per value added by robot, or tax based on a percentage of the cost of the robot?
Tax laws could get very complicated very quickly, and you'll find the haves will cheat the system at the expensive of the have-nots. Just like today, big companies will know how to circumvent the biggest taxes.
Women hit their sexual peak in their 30s. You're missing out.
I wish someone told my wife that.
Yeah, a butt plug that doubles as a phone and can detect cancer. Call it the aPhone.
Finally, a butt-dialing to become legitimate.
I didn't say they didn't know what they were doing, I was saying they probably aren't Tech Savvy.
Net neutrality is a simple enough concept you don't need to be technically gifted to understand. However, as easy as it would be to explain. Have you ever tried explaining anything to an ideologue, and most politicians are ideologues. Capable of understanding something and willing to understand something are two different things.
I make no presumptions though as to whether these senators know what horrific thing they are doing, or if they're doing it because they chose to not be educated.
To quote a phrase, "I won".
Who said that?
Me, in a first to orgasm race against your mom.
I think it would be quite amusing actually to make the "bad guys" in a video game you have to plow down into pictures of exes.
huh, with the exception of Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), none of these jugheads are from what I would consider in any way a tech state, .
I don't think there is a state in the union where every member is well versed in tech, nor a state where no member is. I don't think you can judge a senator's tech-savviness based on his home state. I'd bet 95% of politicians are not tech-savvy. They tend to be older individuals, and also come from backgrounds not dependent in tech. There are exceptions, but most of them aren't tech savvy.
Perhaps we can just create a new Washington DC on Mars and have all the politicians go live there.
bullshit
He's actually quite right. Things like Facebook and Twitter and "following", even Google Now's page. It all tracks things you like and molds to an individuals viewpoint.
Most people ARE getting a very narrow view of the world now. Gone is the broad-spectrum news that people used to get. People tailormake their news to fit their specific world-view these days.
If news doesn't fit your ideology, you don't read it.
It has led to increased polarization in the political spectrum.
This was me, until this morning. I aggregated all my RSS feeds on an igHome page with multiple tabs- but they appear to have blanked out my account over the weekend- I'm just seeing generic crap now. Not my RSS feeds.
Now I need to start all over again finding my feeds.
He wants to cut all sorts of science and research budgets
The EPA isn't science, it's a Liberal and Bureaucratic propaganda and shakedown racket.
I disagree with EPA not being science. However, just for the sake of argument you are right.
As an example; Trump's Budget also calls for a 20% cut in R&D for the National Institute of Health research. 44% cut in R&D for Department of Energy.
It is not incorrect to say that Trump wants to cut science and R&D spending by the government. It is also not incorrect to say he believes Private Enterprise should be responsible for it.
You can make a political statement that he is correct politically to slash public spending on science (I would disagree), but you can't say he is for public science spending because he clearly isn't.
You underestimate the stupidity of humanity. Have you ever met people?
I work in IT support. Are people as bad as users?
Worse, and there is some overlap. Some users are people as well.
That Trump will finish a first term much less get reelected to a second term is as unlikely as NASA to send astronauts to Mars in the next eight years.
You underestimate the stupidity of humanity. Have you ever met people?
For the record: I am very pro humans going to Mars. I realize the hurdles, I realize the dangers. I realize we can't economically achieve it right now. I believe in the Buzz Aldrin model of an initially one way trip, I'm aware there is a high risk of life in the early days, (so should any applicant to go).
With all that said, if it takes Trump's ego to get us to Mars, I am all for that. He might actually be one of the very few men at the top willing to risk the political backlash of failure.
Even if we're going for the wrong reasons, I would be glad if we took the steps.
I have a suspicion this is Ego vs Science.
He wants to cut all sorts of science and research budgets, so he's obviously not in favor of public money being spend on science. In Trump's eyes science is a private enterprise thing, not a government thing.
So why does he want to go to Mars, and specifically why does he want to go during his presidency?
The answer is Ego.
He wants to be known as the President who got man to another planet. He wants the capital city on some long-in-the-future Mars to be called Trump Town.
He doesn't want to go to look for signs of life, he doesn't want to go to advance science, he doesn't want to go to see if there is any long-term investment strategy.
He wants to go for the ego-boost.
No malware, easy to use. Generic browser interface. They're cheap and reliable ideal for computers.
Apple are overpriced, have a User Interface almost no-one will use once they hit the corporate environment, people may have them for their home PCs, but few at work. They do have the advantage of fewer viruses. (yeah, I know if you're doing art stuff, and wearing sunglasses indoors, you may use a Mac in your office- but I'm talking about the majority of people).
Microsoft products would be a midlevel price and a User Interface worth learning from the standpoint, they will probably be using MS for most of their careers. The problem is, Microsoft gets expensive with maintenance and preventing the kids doing stupid things and downloading viruses.
For kids and schools, Chromebook just make way more sense.
Even if the technology were ready right now at this moment, adapting it to replace half of all jobs would still take more than ten years. There are plenty of things that can easily be done by computer, that are not, because it takes time and money to get them ready to use.
I would say a combination of robotics, computers, automation, and a very rudimentary pseudo-AI has already taken well over 50% of jobs. The thing is, new jobs have been created.
If you go back to the 80's and earlier, manufacturing was a huge portion of the job market. Relatively, few people work "in the factory" now. Even office jobs became more efficient with computers.
We don't have 50% unemployment because the market adapted, we switched to a post-industrial, service oriented economy. That can't last forever though. Not if machines can start taking over service jobs too. The economy may adapt again, and people find jobs in other sectors, or we may start seeing high levels of unemployment. I'm not Nostradamus so I can't tell you.
Frequently when jobs are lost, others are created;.it's just, not at the same rate.
If the toll was $10 each way,
Holy crap! Who the F would pay $10 each way on a toll? It costs me $20 to fill my little Honda up with fuel, your proposed toll would cost me an entire week's would of fuel in one day's worth of tolls.
$10 a trip toll would never fly, no one would pay that much to commute one way to work each day.
Today, but I worry that tomorrow that won't be an option, you'll pay premium price for adware pre-installed with no option to remove it. Kind of like cable I pay a subscription fee {actually I don't have cable anymore} and then get blasted with advertising anyway.
It's possible, but it would have to be at an Operating System level. Right now there are literally dozens of companies branding their own tablets, no-one could get away with it easily.
Operating systems there are only 2 big players (3 if you count MS). Forced ads would most likely be introduced at the OS level if at all. (or by an ISP hijacking your connection)
If you're in IT, you better be an asshole or nothing will ever get done.
Not where I work. I've worked places where people got let go for no other reason than being an asshole. (naturally, that isn't how it was worded to them, but everyone knows that that is the real reason).
The most common reason they gave for their departures was workplace mistreatment.
If that reason is given more often by women and minorities then it is whites and men... perhaps companies ARE mistreating women and minorities which WOULD make it the company's fault.
It's possible that those groups just "perceive" mistreatment more often, or they could actually be being mistreated more.
Being the perennial centrist, on-the-fence person that I am- I don't know which is the real reason.
When I buy a tablet I would prefer not to have to pay extra to get it without adware pre-installed like the fire tablet.
So would I, so would everyone.
Truth is though, the existence of the ad-supported tablet probably doesn't greatly affect the price of the ad-free tablet. If the ad-supported tablet didn't exist I don't think many people would be complaining about the cost of the ad-free tablet; it is priced competitively with other similar quality build/feature models.
They didn't bump the price of the ad-free model- they put a discount on the ad model because they expected to make more than the $20 difference selling advertising to your eyes over the life of the product. They forwent revenue today for more revenue in the future.
If you don't want Amazon to buy the rights to force feed you ads on a tablet, don't buy the ad supported tablet, buy the regularly priced one.