What would they do with money when anything and everything you could want would be provided by robots simply for asking for it?
Why would someone build a robot to help you and provide you with goods and services if it wasn't going to provide them with something in return. There are some generous people in the world, but most expect to get something in return for helping you. There will always be an economy and a trading of goods and services even if money itself may change forms.
End of century ought to see so much robotization that we will live like the ancient Romans, with slaves to do all the real work, and for us those slaves will be robots. We program them to to do what they're told, they mine the minerals and build the machines to give us clean energy, transport us wherever we want to go, build gadgets to keep us from having to weed the garden in case we want to do it ourselves rather than letting personal robots grow food, etc. Nobody has to pay a robot because it too is served by other robots that supply its needs, and so forth. There will be no reason to study anything because the robots will be conducting the science and exploration, all we have to do is whatever we find pleasurable.
We should last about as long as the Krell that way.
When no-one works anymore the haves and the have-nots will be cemented in place. There will no longer be social mobility. Those who own the factories will have money. Those who don't will be considered in poverty by that generation. They will probably be given just a minimal amount to keep them from revolting and to keep them alive to feed demand for the goods from those on top.
That's why we only need to work 3 or 4 days a week. We're already wasting so much time. Might as well do something we like instead.
Studies have shown that people are more productive the less time they spend in an office; and that people who take more vacation days achieve more in a year than those that don't (even with the vacation time taken out). Productivity probably wouldn't drop much at all with a 4 day work week.
Searching camera feeds based on physical human traits. Quelle horror.
Yeah... at first glance at the headline the initial reaction is... "uh-oh" that doesn't sound good- then reading the blurb you realize that, it's just doing a useful feature. If you're looking for a specific suspect it would be great if the software could narrow it down to people of a similar demographic.
Certainly there is room for abuse here, but there's also room for a very valid and useful police tool. It all comes down to who is using the tool. A "good cop" could have a very powerful tool here... any cop looking to deliberately do something racist doesn't really need software to help them with that.
My plan to ruin Uber. Become an uber driver and give all my passengers 1 star ratings. Pretty soon Uber will have no passengers left with good enough scores to get a ride.
I believer you are forgetting something very important. Facebook and Twitter are indeed private corporations. An as therefor they do have the right to dictate what appears on their site, until...
Until... Yes, government can pass regulations on corporations like that; but haven't, and I don't think it would be popular from either side of the political spectrum if government's could chose what private corporations are allowed to post on a whim.
Let's not forget, the people being censored are a small percentage of the right (and some from the left) who are practicing hate speech. Republicans are not going to want to be seen as the party of hate-speech. They're not in large numbers going to request that facebook allow hate-speech. It remains a niche group in the party that request that. Most republicans aren't pro-racism.
I think you're trying to provoke a snarky response.
Do you honestly have no way to search for this information?
I have no idea where you live and what quirky local laws are in place at your location. So no. Malls are certainly not required to let people post whatever they want without being allowed to take it down in malls nationwide.
In general, the court held that the more an area was opened up to public use, the more it had to abide by statutory rights of a person in a public place.
Not stopping people passing out leaflets or stopping people talking is a big jump from the mall being required to let people post anything they like to a mall's corkboard and the mall not being able to take it down.
A more fitting example with Facebook/Twitter would be if the malls were required to let anyone use their mallwide intercom system anytime they wanted and say anything they wanted.
If you count the third parties it's still against her; the Gary Johnsons align closer to trump and the Jill Steins closer to Hillary. Trump+Johnson > Stein+Clinton in the popular vote.
I don't know that you can say that. Johnson was a libertarian. Trump is about as far away from Libertarianism as you can get. Tarriffs, blocking people from entry to the country. Increased military spending and involvement in other countries. Trying to regulate the press. His increased government involvement in all sorts of things would not be popular with libertarian ideals. Trump is almost the exact opposite of libertarianism. Not that libertarians would have any joy with Clinton either- she's far from libertarian ideals too.
It's really hard to say though who was more unpopular between Trump and Clinton- they were both despised by their own party and the rival's party too. People that hated them voted for them nonetheless for reasons other than "popularity"- some because of longstanding political affiliations. I know plenty of people in SC that always vote straight party republican- they don't consider the person but the party. I'm sure there are democrats who do that too... just in SC fewer of them.
There's some legal precedent for this: when a shopping center is torn down and a mall built in its place, the mall can't prevent [otherwise legal] postings on its corkboard, because the mall has taken place of the supermarket public corkboard. Even though the mall is privately owned - the supermarket was also privately owned.
I'd like to see your source for that. That sounds like some weird quirky law. I can't imagine malls are legally required to have a public corkboard in the first place in most locations. I haven't looked for one, but I don't recall ever seeing one in any mall I've been in.
Unless Facebook and Twitter have been made public and are no longer private entities, they are not required to keep posted everything you write.
Fuck off with this tired old propaganda piece. They're corporations, they are only entities by virtue of the power granted by the government, the government does not have the right to quell free speech so neither does any corporation, period. They know damn well censorship is on shaky grounds and people are getting fed up with it, which is exactly why they're bitching about how much of a menace they themselves are. It's a tactic to try to get people to scream "please of please censor us, for you are clearly our wise superiors." Fuck them and fuck their sociopathic attempts to control the masses through censorship, and fuck you too for being dumb enough to be their halfwit shill.
Newspapers can chose not to publish letters to the editor and have for all time. TV stations aren't required to broadcast your home movies if you send them in. If you send an addendum to a Steven King novel... guess what... the publisher isn't required to include it as part of the novel. Heck- if you record a song in your mother's basement and send it to Nickelback- they aren't even required to include it in their next album. If you give Webster a new definition for their dictionary stating that the word donkey now means dog, they will probably ignore you. A buy sell newspaper could even choose not to list your ad.
This isn't about censorship- there is certainly nothing new about this; it's happened longer than the internet age has existed. It's just about private corporations choosing what they publish on their own platforms- that THEY OWN... and they absolutely have the right to not publish your racist drivel if they don't want to.
You don't like it? There are websites that would love to hear how much you hate minorities and women- go post on one of their websites if that is more your crowd. You can go to 4chan if you think facebook and twitter are too tame for your liking. You have options and places to go to spout bile if you really want to.
Good. Amazon is abusive. And they don't pay taxes. Stop the abuse, make them pay their share, both at once. https://thenextweb.com/insider...
Amazon is taking hits from the left and the right here. Amazon doesn't have a fan in the current white house either. They don't have many allies in DC.
Sometimes racism is just that... racism. Removing hate speech doesn't have to be about Conservatives vs Liberals.
I'm an centrist independent and I'm fully for Twitter and Facebook removing racist posts (not that I use Facebook or Twitter myself). The fact that a small percentage of Republicans (and it is a small percentage-not all Republicans are racist douche-bags; the party existed before Trump and used to be fairly intolerant of racism like the rest of us) feel it is necessary for racism to be allowed to express their political views is quite telling about what really drives those individuals.
I fully support freedom of speech, but media companies are not required to post and keep every single thing you write on their platforms- nor should the be.
There are pro-white supremacy websites out there. If you're offended that racism isn't allowed on your media site of choice- go use one of those which do allow it and leave everyone else alone.
The only current threat is THEIR censorship of political opposition who they are intolerant of.
Either they support free speech or they do not.
Unless Facebook and Twitter have been made public and are no longer private entities, they are not required to keep posted everything you write. They are corporate entities dealing with the public at large. They want to attract as large a public as possible to boost their incomes and help out their shareholders; sometimes that means removing things like hate speech that might otherwise make their platforms less desirable to certain demographics.
Facebook and Twitter aren't required to give you free speech.
Reminds me of the saying "those who have no point use PowerPoint".
Just because you can doesn't mean you should!
Powerpoints have their place- but if all someone is doing is reading a powerpoint... just send me an e-mail instead... of course, I'll probably ignore the e-mail- but I'll also ignore you reading a powerpoint to me.
Slashdot Mirror
"Those who own the factories will have money."
What would they do with money when anything and everything you could want would be provided by robots simply for asking for it?
Why would someone build a robot to help you and provide you with goods and services if it wasn't going to provide them with something in return. There are some generous people in the world, but most expect to get something in return for helping you. There will always be an economy and a trading of goods and services even if money itself may change forms.
End of century ought to see so much robotization that we will live like the ancient Romans, with slaves to do all the real work, and for us those slaves will be robots. We program them to to do what they're told, they mine the minerals and build the machines to give us clean energy, transport us wherever we want to go, build gadgets to keep us from having to weed the garden in case we want to do it ourselves rather than letting personal robots grow food, etc. Nobody has to pay a robot because it too is served by other robots that supply its needs, and so forth. There will be no reason to study anything because the robots will be conducting the science and exploration, all we have to do is whatever we find pleasurable.
We should last about as long as the Krell that way.
When no-one works anymore the haves and the have-nots will be cemented in place. There will no longer be social mobility. Those who own the factories will have money. Those who don't will be considered in poverty by that generation. They will probably be given just a minimal amount to keep them from revolting and to keep them alive to feed demand for the goods from those on top.
That's why we only need to work 3 or 4 days a week. We're already wasting so much time. Might as well do something we like instead.
Studies have shown that people are more productive the less time they spend in an office; and that people who take more vacation days achieve more in a year than those that don't (even with the vacation time taken out). Productivity probably wouldn't drop much at all with a 4 day work week.
or just pull out.
Yeah, that solution doesn't always work. Damn kids.
Maybe they need to put on their Google Glass so they can read the fonts clearer.
I've found a FLAT EARTH DENIER!
I bet you vaccinate your kids and don't believe in lizard people either.
I don't think IBM was trying to be racist in this case
How could IBM be racist anyway? 100% of the target have some form of skin color, right?
Only the ones with skin... ... only the ones with skin. ...ONLY the ones with skin...
Searching camera feeds based on physical human traits. Quelle horror.
Yeah... at first glance at the headline the initial reaction is... "uh-oh" that doesn't sound good- then reading the blurb you realize that, it's just doing a useful feature. If you're looking for a specific suspect it would be great if the software could narrow it down to people of a similar demographic.
Certainly there is room for abuse here, but there's also room for a very valid and useful police tool. It all comes down to who is using the tool. A "good cop" could have a very powerful tool here... any cop looking to deliberately do something racist doesn't really need software to help them with that.
i can see a struggling company like BB going for patent trolling... i guess FB is feeling the pinch too?!! 24% user drop in US?
Not 24% user drop unfortunately. 24% less people using the "app" on their phone. Presumably most don't use phone or use website on phone instead.
Probably... although, uber expects the passengers to pay uber drivers with tips instead of them paying them.
My plan to ruin Uber. Become an uber driver and give all my passengers 1 star ratings. Pretty soon Uber will have no passengers left with good enough scores to get a ride.
Bernie Sanders is continuing his assault on Amazon by hacking them.
I believer you are forgetting something very important. Facebook and Twitter are indeed private corporations. An as therefor they do have the right to dictate what appears on their site, until...
Until... Yes, government can pass regulations on corporations like that; but haven't, and I don't think it would be popular from either side of the political spectrum if government's could chose what private corporations are allowed to post on a whim.
Let's not forget, the people being censored are a small percentage of the right (and some from the left) who are practicing hate speech. Republicans are not going to want to be seen as the party of hate-speech. They're not in large numbers going to request that facebook allow hate-speech. It remains a niche group in the party that request that. Most republicans aren't pro-racism.
I think you're trying to provoke a snarky response.
Do you honestly have no way to search for this information?
I have no idea where you live and what quirky local laws are in place at your location. So no. Malls are certainly not required to let people post whatever they want without being allowed to take it down in malls nationwide.
Here's one about handing out leaflets.
In general, the court held that the more an area was opened up to public use, the more it had to abide by statutory rights of a person in a public place.
Not stopping people passing out leaflets or stopping people talking is a big jump from the mall being required to let people post anything they like to a mall's corkboard and the mall not being able to take it down.
A more fitting example with Facebook/Twitter would be if the malls were required to let anyone use their mallwide intercom system anytime they wanted and say anything they wanted.
If you count the third parties it's still against her; the Gary Johnsons align closer to trump and the Jill Steins closer to Hillary. Trump+Johnson > Stein+Clinton in the popular vote.
I don't know that you can say that. Johnson was a libertarian. Trump is about as far away from Libertarianism as you can get. Tarriffs, blocking people from entry to the country. Increased military spending and involvement in other countries. Trying to regulate the press. His increased government involvement in all sorts of things would not be popular with libertarian ideals. Trump is almost the exact opposite of libertarianism. Not that libertarians would have any joy with Clinton either- she's far from libertarian ideals too.
It's really hard to say though who was more unpopular between Trump and Clinton- they were both despised by their own party and the rival's party too. People that hated them voted for them nonetheless for reasons other than "popularity"- some because of longstanding political affiliations. I know plenty of people in SC that always vote straight party republican- they don't consider the person but the party. I'm sure there are democrats who do that too... just in SC fewer of them.
There's some legal precedent for this: when a shopping center is torn down and a mall built in its place, the mall can't prevent [otherwise legal] postings on its corkboard, because the mall has taken place of the supermarket public corkboard. Even though the mall is privately owned - the supermarket was also privately owned.
I'd like to see your source for that. That sounds like some weird quirky law. I can't imagine malls are legally required to have a public corkboard in the first place in most locations. I haven't looked for one, but I don't recall ever seeing one in any mall I've been in.
Unless Facebook and Twitter have been made public and are no longer private entities, they are not required to keep posted everything you write.
Fuck off with this tired old propaganda piece. They're corporations, they are only entities by virtue of the power granted by the government, the government does not have the right to quell free speech so neither does any corporation, period. They know damn well censorship is on shaky grounds and people are getting fed up with it, which is exactly why they're bitching about how much of a menace they themselves are. It's a tactic to try to get people to scream "please of please censor us, for you are clearly our wise superiors." Fuck them and fuck their sociopathic attempts to control the masses through censorship, and fuck you too for being dumb enough to be their halfwit shill.
Newspapers can chose not to publish letters to the editor and have for all time. TV stations aren't required to broadcast your home movies if you send them in. If you send an addendum to a Steven King novel... guess what... the publisher isn't required to include it as part of the novel. Heck- if you record a song in your mother's basement and send it to Nickelback- they aren't even required to include it in their next album. If you give Webster a new definition for their dictionary stating that the word donkey now means dog, they will probably ignore you. A buy sell newspaper could even choose not to list your ad.
This isn't about censorship- there is certainly nothing new about this; it's happened longer than the internet age has existed. It's just about private corporations choosing what they publish on their own platforms- that THEY OWN... and they absolutely have the right to not publish your racist drivel if they don't want to.
You don't like it? There are websites that would love to hear how much you hate minorities and women- go post on one of their websites if that is more your crowd. You can go to 4chan if you think facebook and twitter are too tame for your liking. You have options and places to go to spout bile if you really want to.
Good. Amazon is abusive. And they don't pay taxes. Stop the abuse, make them pay their share, both at once.
https://thenextweb.com/insider...
Amazon is taking hits from the left and the right here. Amazon doesn't have a fan in the current white house either. They don't have many allies in DC.
They just can't and won't ever admit that Hillary Clinton was pretty much the most unlikable candidate ever.
I said from the beginning she had zero chance of winning.
She will never be US president.
Thank God.
Perhaps the second most unlikable candidate ever. She did get more votes than Trump but lost because of the electoral college system.
Indeed; although one can partially begat the other.
Sometimes racism is just that... racism. Removing hate speech doesn't have to be about Conservatives vs Liberals.
I'm an centrist independent and I'm fully for Twitter and Facebook removing racist posts (not that I use Facebook or Twitter myself). The fact that a small percentage of Republicans (and it is a small percentage-not all Republicans are racist douche-bags; the party existed before Trump and used to be fairly intolerant of racism like the rest of us) feel it is necessary for racism to be allowed to express their political views is quite telling about what really drives those individuals.
I fully support freedom of speech, but media companies are not required to post and keep every single thing you write on their platforms- nor should the be.
There are pro-white supremacy websites out there. If you're offended that racism isn't allowed on your media site of choice- go use one of those which do allow it and leave everyone else alone.
The only current threat is THEIR censorship of political opposition who they are intolerant of.
Either they support free speech or they do not.
Unless Facebook and Twitter have been made public and are no longer private entities, they are not required to keep posted everything you write. They are corporate entities dealing with the public at large. They want to attract as large a public as possible to boost their incomes and help out their shareholders; sometimes that means removing things like hate speech that might otherwise make their platforms less desirable to certain demographics.
Facebook and Twitter aren't required to give you free speech.
One of the greatest advantages of working remotely is that you just put your phone on mute and continue to actually get work done.
You can do that in an office too. That's precisely what I do.
Reminds me of the saying "those who have no point use PowerPoint".
Just because you can doesn't mean you should!
Powerpoints have their place- but if all someone is doing is reading a powerpoint... just send me an e-mail instead... of course, I'll probably ignore the e-mail- but I'll also ignore you reading a powerpoint to me.