People will grow out of the 9-5 slave-aholic mindset sooner or later I guess.
Well, most of us have moved on to the 8-5 shift with sporadic overtime some while back. Additionally, I'll be happy to give it up as soon as there is an alternative that doesn't involve being starving and homeless.
Not really, if the labor shortage lasted a while then strawberry prices would rise (and demand fall) until the labor was affordable at whatever rate was necessary to attract workers. That's the beauty of the free market, it adjusts automatically. Now, that might mean no one but rich people can afford strawberries, which is a whole different sort of problem and one not solved by the free market.
I'd be ok with it as long as we restrict it to asymmetric warfare. For those purposes privateers work quite well and have been safely and successfully employed in the past. I would not support that being extended to more traditional military roles as that gets into the area of mercenaries which have all sorts of problems. (They're similar but subtly different)
It's a bit of a grey area. Article I and Article II conflict a bit about who decides what and many of the clauses are somewhat vague. The war powers act of 1973 was supposed to clarify things but instead just muddied the water. Additionally, some question whether or not we can declare war on non-state actors like terrorists, Ron Paul for example suggested that we could not and recommended we use letters of marque instead. (which while still allowed are considered antique and haven't be actually used in a long time) In the US, where there are matters of contention these issues are usually resolved by the Supreme Court but in order to have standing you'd probably have to be the president or a member of congress and so far no one has pushed the issue. Personally I'd like to see us move back to formal declarations of war, but I doubt that's going to happen any time soon.
The only thing the religious hate more than unbelievers is heretics. The more similar the heresy, the higher the level of hate. Here is a nice joke from Emo Phillips to illustrate my point:
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!”
He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”
He said, “Yes.” I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?”
He said, “A Christian.” I said, “Me too! Protestant or Catholic?”
He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me too! What denomination?”
He said, “Baptist.” I said, “Me too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Baptist.” I said, “Me too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.” I said, “Me too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.” I said, “Me too!”
“Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879 or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?” I said, “Die heretic!” And I pushed him over.
Maybe your remote control warfare doesn't provide you with enough actual understanding of the situation and just deciding to bomb something without really knowing what you're doing is a bad idea?
'Collateral Damage' is military speak for "we don't actually care who we kill, but we'll pretend it's not a war crime".
There is never a zero percent chance of collateral damage, regardless of the weapon or soldier involved. It's important to set a high threshold of confidence, but that threshold will never be perfection, so from time to time you'll kill someone you didn't mean to. That's still quite a bit different from the terrorist's strategy which is to do 100% collateral damage ON PURPOSE.
While I would prefer the older declaration of war structure, he is actually acting within his authority under the current authorization for use of military force.
Well a good start might be to choose a workable business model. They've been pretty much running in circles since Google surpassed them as the lead search engine, in like what 2002 or so?
The internet existed in 1983, and was spreading quickly in 1986.
Perhaps, but it wasn't available outside of a small number of specialists. I was a heavy computer user at that time I can guarantee you if it had been widely available I would have been all over that. Instead, for home users, the mid-1980s were mostly about BBS services, which while kind of similar, were by no means the huge interconnected thing that the internet has since become.
Minimizing future crime is certainly an important goal, but it's not the only one or even the most important one. The most important goal is that individuals should feel that they got enough justice that they're willing to abdicate their natural right to take matters into their own hands. A system which fails to meet that goal results in vigilantism and then eventually independent militias and civil war. This is one of the basics of being a civilized society ruled by laws rather than a group of barbarians.
static well-established commodities would be abandoned to the state to manage
Only if those who benefit most from that switch are the ones in control of the state. A more likely result is that investment just moves elsewhere and a lot of people are out of luck.
For items which are high in labor but low in raw materials, land use and energy cost, yes. Electronic devices are going to be pretty darn cheap, food, not so much.
It would be nice if we could use this transition to develop an economic model that would be more widely equitable than Capitalism has turned out to be.
Figure out one that doesn't suck or run on pipe dreams and you can count me in, for the moment there is no alternative.
if you had a great machine that automated all means of resource extraction, refining, assembly, and distribution, all powered by automated energy sources or just solar, then i'm sorry, the cost is negligible enough to be called zero
There would still be limitations on the quantity of raw materials, land, and the total energy production capacity. It would certainly be vastly different than things are now, but that doesn't mean everything would be free.
The goal of capitalism has nothing to do with removing human workers. The fact that sometimes efficiencies lead to fewer workers does not mean that is a goal.
Even complete elimination of labor costs would not result in the situation you're describing. Raw materials and land, at the very least, will still have value.
Laser pumped solar sail is about the only thing we have right now that would be anywhere near fast enough. Mostly because the "fuel" is generated at the departure point instead of needing to be carried along. It would be a huge project and frankly I don't think we're up to it politically but the science is pretty solid and the engineering is mostly there already.
Slashdot Mirror
People will grow out of the 9-5 slave-aholic mindset sooner or later I guess.
Well, most of us have moved on to the 8-5 shift with sporadic overtime some while back. Additionally, I'll be happy to give it up as soon as there is an alternative that doesn't involve being starving and homeless.
Not really, if the labor shortage lasted a while then strawberry prices would rise (and demand fall) until the labor was affordable at whatever rate was necessary to attract workers. That's the beauty of the free market, it adjusts automatically. Now, that might mean no one but rich people can afford strawberries, which is a whole different sort of problem and one not solved by the free market.
Well, it's not strong AI that's for sure, it's most accurately categorized as an expert system.
I'd be ok with it as long as we restrict it to asymmetric warfare. For those purposes privateers work quite well and have been safely and successfully employed in the past. I would not support that being extended to more traditional military roles as that gets into the area of mercenaries which have all sorts of problems. (They're similar but subtly different)
It's a bit of a grey area. Article I and Article II conflict a bit about who decides what and many of the clauses are somewhat vague. The war powers act of 1973 was supposed to clarify things but instead just muddied the water. Additionally, some question whether or not we can declare war on non-state actors like terrorists, Ron Paul for example suggested that we could not and recommended we use letters of marque instead. (which while still allowed are considered antique and haven't be actually used in a long time) In the US, where there are matters of contention these issues are usually resolved by the Supreme Court but in order to have standing you'd probably have to be the president or a member of congress and so far no one has pushed the issue. Personally I'd like to see us move back to formal declarations of war, but I doubt that's going to happen any time soon.
The only thing the religious hate more than unbelievers is heretics. The more similar the heresy, the higher the level of hate. Here is a nice joke from Emo Phillips to illustrate my point:
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!”
He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”
He said, “Yes.” I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?”
He said, “A Christian.” I said, “Me too! Protestant or Catholic?”
He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me too! What denomination?”
He said, “Baptist.” I said, “Me too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Baptist.” I said, “Me too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.” I said, “Me too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.” I said, “Me too!”
“Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879 or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?” I said, “Die heretic!” And I pushed him over.
Maybe your remote control warfare doesn't provide you with enough actual understanding of the situation and just deciding to bomb something without really knowing what you're doing is a bad idea?
'Collateral Damage' is military speak for "we don't actually care who we kill, but we'll pretend it's not a war crime".
There is never a zero percent chance of collateral damage, regardless of the weapon or soldier involved. It's important to set a high threshold of confidence, but that threshold will never be perfection, so from time to time you'll kill someone you didn't mean to. That's still quite a bit different from the terrorist's strategy which is to do 100% collateral damage ON PURPOSE.
While I would prefer the older declaration of war structure, he is actually acting within his authority under the current authorization for use of military force.
Well a good start might be to choose a workable business model. They've been pretty much running in circles since Google surpassed them as the lead search engine, in like what 2002 or so?
Oh, and they all understand fractions
Well, if they graduated high school and still don't grasp fractions then something is seriously wrong.
The internet existed in 1983, and was spreading quickly in 1986.
Perhaps, but it wasn't available outside of a small number of specialists. I was a heavy computer user at that time I can guarantee you if it had been widely available I would have been all over that. Instead, for home users, the mid-1980s were mostly about BBS services, which while kind of similar, were by no means the huge interconnected thing that the internet has since become.
Minimizing future crime is certainly an important goal, but it's not the only one or even the most important one. The most important goal is that individuals should feel that they got enough justice that they're willing to abdicate their natural right to take matters into their own hands. A system which fails to meet that goal results in vigilantism and then eventually independent militias and civil war. This is one of the basics of being a civilized society ruled by laws rather than a group of barbarians.
Fighting cancer is fighting evolution itself.
Good, Americans like a war we can really sink our teeth into.
we are in control of the state. the people. at least we should be, we're not to the extent to which the plutocrats corrupted it
Should be in control and actually are in control are not the same thing.
static well-established commodities would be abandoned to the state to manage
Only if those who benefit most from that switch are the ones in control of the state. A more likely result is that investment just moves elsewhere and a lot of people are out of luck.
For items which are high in labor but low in raw materials, land use and energy cost, yes. Electronic devices are going to be pretty darn cheap, food, not so much.
It would be nice if we could use this transition to develop an economic model that would be more widely equitable than Capitalism has turned out to be.
Figure out one that doesn't suck or run on pipe dreams and you can count me in, for the moment there is no alternative.
if you had a great machine that automated all means of resource extraction, refining, assembly, and distribution, all powered by automated energy sources or just solar, then i'm sorry, the cost is negligible enough to be called zero
There would still be limitations on the quantity of raw materials, land, and the total energy production capacity. It would certainly be vastly different than things are now, but that doesn't mean everything would be free.
the goal of the company as a whole is to make money: sell lots of good stuff at a reasonable profit.
Replace the word "reasonable" with "maximum" and you're closer to the truth.
The goal of capitalism has nothing to do with removing human workers. The fact that sometimes efficiencies lead to fewer workers does not mean that is a goal.
It's mostly just a handy side effect.
Even complete elimination of labor costs would not result in the situation you're describing. Raw materials and land, at the very least, will still have value.
Laser pumped solar sail is about the only thing we have right now that would be anywhere near fast enough. Mostly because the "fuel" is generated at the departure point instead of needing to be carried along. It would be a huge project and frankly I don't think we're up to it politically but the science is pretty solid and the engineering is mostly there already.
The problem is that they have to treat everyone the same.
Great, then lets see pictures of CEOs and other senior executives being escorted out of buildings.
Of course those questions belong in philosophy not social science.
Education as a field is mostly a philosophy-based practice and is only now starting to dabble in evidence-based decision making.
We don't have time for rational solutions! Why won't you think of the children?