College is increasingly becoming a waste of time and money. This is increasingly the case in our global economy, where everyone is racing each other to the bottom and everything you need to know, can be learned online as required. This is especially true for technical fields.
If you can afford to go to college, the chances are you don't need the money as much as your future competition.
Despite what many may believe, this could be good for humans for many reasons.
1) It should free up human labour to work on things that humans can do better than robots.
2) It will force people to become smarter. Some may not like this, but it is survival of the fittest.
3) Ideally, prices will drop. In reality, profits increase.
I was about to write this. If we are comparing the sentences, the question is about which threat poses the greatest risk to society.
It is NOT about the actual damage done. As above, welcome to the new world.
Personally I like the idea that Warren Buffet proposed. If we are not in a declared war and the US debt exceeds 10% of GDP then all members of congress and the senate should be ineligible for re-election until such time as the debt is brought back to an appropriate level.
There are a few problems with this proposal. Most significantly, it seems this would encourage the US to be in a state of war.
As an Australian and armchair economist, I agree that dirty energy producers should not be subsidized by the government. However, the fact remains: the infrastructure is already in place for coal extraction, logistics and power production. Switching to an alternative energy source immediately would mean a huge amount wealth was wasted in the establishment of this existing infrastructure.
It seems to me that we need make a sensible transition to cleaner energy sources in the future. So yes, stop building new dirty power plants. This doesn't mean shutting down the existing ones.
The powers that be will only be convinced in economic terms. Show them why investing in cleaner energy is worthwhile.
It depends what is meant by "fucking up the planet". Are you speaking purely of the environmental impact of economic growth?
It is quite easy to argue that the quality of human life is improved by adding value to the global economy.
Why so much Apple hate here?
Yes, they have shitloads of cash.
Yes, they make the most of a capitalist system.
I couldn't care less if Apple went bankrupt tomorrow. I'm just asking, WHY SO MUCH HATRED?
This company actually invests in renewable energy - how many other fortune 200 companies are doing this?
It seems like this is just more of the same old attitude - "It's a money making entity! Kill it!"
NO WAY!
This is a genuine philanthropic endeavor by some of the most altruistic people on the planet. They are giving away their fortunes out of the goodness of their hearts. And besides, isn't it better that we let the righteous distribute their earnings as they see fit, and not let those socialist tax collectors get in the way?
I did it at university because they thought it would teach people good programming habits. In fact it just made us hate Ada and look for ways to subvert it
That's a shame. I was also introduced to Ada at university and, while I accept that the syntax is pedantic, it was demonstrably extremely useful. Now I just see it as another tool which I could competently apply to problems where high reliability is mandatory and distributed/concurrent algorithms are involved.
It is interesting that you bring up space exploration as an example, as strong AI could actually simplify space exploration. By sending smart drones, we could explore greater depths of the universe much more easily. as well as colonize other planets.
This could even assist with human colonization. Strong AI drones could carry genetic material over thousands of years, prepare livable conditions and raise/train humans. I honestly believe this is a more practical colonization technique than sending living humans through space.
Slashdot Mirror
Well that seems reasonable. It seems clear to me that an educated, healthy person is more valuable to society than an unborn baby.
You obviously don't know much about software development. The spectrum of mastery in software engineering varies from burger flipper to head chef.
Why can't I print those?
Those bytes won't ship themselves!
We each have a finite amount of time.
Time spent learning the electronic implementation of every CPU is time I can't spend solving "real" problems.
Switching? Why would I want to switch to Oracle?
Yeah! New programmers only need to know Python! Anyone who thinks otherwise is just an old fart.
College is increasingly becoming a waste of time and money. This is increasingly the case in our global economy, where everyone is racing each other to the bottom and everything you need to know, can be learned online as required. This is especially true for technical fields. If you can afford to go to college, the chances are you don't need the money as much as your future competition.
Despite what many may believe, this could be good for humans for many reasons. 1) It should free up human labour to work on things that humans can do better than robots. 2) It will force people to become smarter. Some may not like this, but it is survival of the fittest. 3) Ideally, prices will drop. In reality, profits increase.
I was about to write this. If we are comparing the sentences, the question is about which threat poses the greatest risk to society. It is NOT about the actual damage done. As above, welcome to the new world.
Starcraft 2
Personally I like the idea that Warren Buffet proposed. If we are not in a declared war and the US debt exceeds 10% of GDP then all members of congress and the senate should be ineligible for re-election until such time as the debt is brought back to an appropriate level.
There are a few problems with this proposal. Most significantly, it seems this would encourage the US to be in a state of war.
As an Australian and armchair economist, I agree that dirty energy producers should not be subsidized by the government. However, the fact remains: the infrastructure is already in place for coal extraction, logistics and power production. Switching to an alternative energy source immediately would mean a huge amount wealth was wasted in the establishment of this existing infrastructure. It seems to me that we need make a sensible transition to cleaner energy sources in the future. So yes, stop building new dirty power plants. This doesn't mean shutting down the existing ones. The powers that be will only be convinced in economic terms. Show them why investing in cleaner energy is worthwhile.
It depends what is meant by "fucking up the planet". Are you speaking purely of the environmental impact of economic growth? It is quite easy to argue that the quality of human life is improved by adding value to the global economy.
Why so much Apple hate here? Yes, they have shitloads of cash. Yes, they make the most of a capitalist system. I couldn't care less if Apple went bankrupt tomorrow. I'm just asking, WHY SO MUCH HATRED? This company actually invests in renewable energy - how many other fortune 200 companies are doing this? It seems like this is just more of the same old attitude - "It's a money making entity! Kill it!"
NO WAY! This is a genuine philanthropic endeavor by some of the most altruistic people on the planet. They are giving away their fortunes out of the goodness of their hearts. And besides, isn't it better that we let the righteous distribute their earnings as they see fit, and not let those socialist tax collectors get in the way?
I did it at university because they thought it would teach people good programming habits. In fact it just made us hate Ada and look for ways to subvert it
That's a shame. I was also introduced to Ada at university and, while I accept that the syntax is pedantic, it was demonstrably extremely useful. Now I just see it as another tool which I could competently apply to problems where high reliability is mandatory and distributed/concurrent algorithms are involved.
It is interesting that you bring up space exploration as an example, as strong AI could actually simplify space exploration. By sending smart drones, we could explore greater depths of the universe much more easily. as well as colonize other planets. This could even assist with human colonization. Strong AI drones could carry genetic material over thousands of years, prepare livable conditions and raise/train humans. I honestly believe this is a more practical colonization technique than sending living humans through space.