There is a clearn advantage to a Dvorak keyboard. I have one on my box at home. It has a clutch, making it switchable between Qwerty and Dvorak. My wife, an outstanding typist, refuses to even think about using it, thus keeping people away. Advantage: Dvorak
Once, years ago, when I was still in college, I just got started with the Moz alpha and liked it. A friend suggested I look at the Opera beta, and we tested them head-to-head and quickly agreed that the Opera beta was alpha-quality at best and the Moz alpha was functional for everyday use. I've occasionally downloaded Opera, but never for more as a toy, testing browser.
I sort-of admin VMS, and I think it has an "append" attribute, so you can dump to a file (like logs) without the ability to go in and change something in the middle or delete the whole thing. I like this.
the schools with the highest scores get the most funding (seems backwards to me)
How so? The stats show we give much money (second to Sweden) and get poor results. You reward the system that works and gives a model to the systems that don't. I get your point, honest I do, but it seems forward to me.
There is one effects shot in V for Vendetta. The destruction of Big Ben. There is nothing else in the story that requires big budget filmmaking. You could very easily do V on a Pi budget.
The big problem is the mask. The face is the emotive part of the body, and actors hate hiding it. You'd have to have a terrific actor in order to fill the role, because he has to act from behind the mask and never come out. This would be more of an issue to the studios than to the audiences, I think, but V dresses like Guy Fawkes, and I barely got the reference when reading it. The studios would ask "Is there any way you can make this something a Yankee could recognize?
My guess is that automated driving will be more trusted and more likely along longer, straighter, more regular and less complex routes, which would put Greyhound and big trucking as a big early adopter, your local bus lines as a second, as an option for upmarket sedans and SUVs third, and taxis last. Also related to this is the fact that part of the job of a local route bus driver and the taxi driver is collecting money.
I could easily see a magnetically-detectable "rail" down the passing lane, sending little if no digital data but rather indicating where a good, well-behaved automated vehicle should be operating. Considering how often we totally swap out the paving on our interstate highway system, we could have that installed ubiquitously within a decade. Position and destination would come from the GPS system and look-ahead radar and other sensors could easily map out obstacles over a great distance (but would play havoc with fuzz-busters). This would give the "cleanest", most predictable environment for these vehicles. I'd trust one of these computerized vehicles on I90 between Sioux Falls and Rapid City a lot more than I would trust them in midtown Manhattan, at least for the first and second generation.
Years ago, when I was a student web worker, I installed an early Moz version, an alpha, on my work Linux box, and it quickly took over from Netscape as my prime browser. A friend stopped by the cube and pimped Opera, so I tried that. It became clear, very quickly, that there was a clear difference in the quality of code between Moz and Opera. "Do you mean it's beta, like in the Mozilla Alpha release", I would ask, "or do you mean alpha, like the Opera Beta?" I usually download Opera when I get a new work machine, to keep up on progress and to use when I want to test compatability, but I've never seriously used it as a prime browser.
#1 market for music sales is teenage girls. #2 market is teenage boys. Teenagers have small income, but it's mostly disposable. Teenager, as a rule, don't have house payments, car payments, insurance and the like, so every cent earned can be given directly to Jessica Simpson or Fred Durst. And because that is a more dependable cent than what you might expect from, for example, me. For me, if it's a Miles Davis reissue, a Bob Dylan album or something from Richard Thompson that I can actually pick up at B&N, I'll have it quick but for just about everything else, I'll look it up on Allmusic or something, looking for word of mouth and usually not finding anything to listen to on MTV or pop radio. That's my preferences and everyone has their own, but you come to a point where music is of less importance than car payments and my interest in mandolin music or your interest in Krautrock makes a difference. Rhino and Razor&Tie make money repackaging the past, and that's good and wonderful, but the 2-disc reissue of Velvet Underground's Loaded is never going to buy a mansion like a Britney album will.
Look at That Thing You Do. A band had a pop song that was written by the band, and it got turned into a hit single. Within standard pop, I can't recall the last artist who came out without a svengali and with largely self-written songs. Maybe Michelle Branch. To slip back, they're creating their own Wonders these days, and building them with a slightly longer shelf-life so that the initial investment. There's good stuff bubbling up here and there. Personally, if anyone cares, I'd pimp Chris Thile as an incredible artist, but I think I'd push Not All Who Wander Are Lost over his new album, Deceiver, and his work in the band Nickel Creek over either unless I knew your taste. But much of the music I listen to is older than me, and much that isn't is at least old enough to legally drive, and part of the reason for that is that the labels are more interested in pushing what they know they can sell than putting out something they think they might.
It's more than just the nukes. The US Navy is the second largest Air Force in the world and the only blue water navy out there. In many nations, they could never have equivalents to our Rangers, Delta or Special Forces, because those in power would worry that people out of that unit would kill the current leader and/or take over, and Anwar Sadat and Col. Muammar Qadhafi are examples of why.
In 1982, the British Navy had to press into service cargo ships and ferries in order to bring enough of a force to the Falklands to invade, and even then, they had fewer invaders than the Argentina had defenders.
At that time, Britain had the world's third largest navy.
During the Balkans war, the Royal Air Force flew the second highest number of bombing sorties, over #3 by a large margin. They flew 4%.
Europe settles differences by politics and negotiations, and the US settles its differences with Europe the same way. Considering they had 2 major wars in Europe in the last 100 years and none in the last 50, when the US was there to protect them from the big, bad outside world, I'm glad they've switched, even if it means few peacekeepers.
Don't you think another 4 years of US belligerence could push the EU into alliance with the Russians and Chinese? I wouldn't personally like it (Idon't trust the french, let alone the slavs), but the combined might could crush the USA.
China likes trade. China is growing. China, to grow, needs oil and concrete. China groans and points at Taiwan on occasion, but China is not going to fight any time soon. Big bombers and hidden guys with laser sights will destroy any combined might that tries to crush the US, then the capitol buildings of the nations that put those forces together, should it come to that. Honestly, messing with trade relations is a much bigger concern than invasion.
That's why US agencies presently spend so much time trying to start arguments between the various not-quite-enemies-yet-of-the-USA.
I could be blind, but I don't see that happening in the world.
When I code at the computer, I tend to work in clumps, making this work, then that, then the other, and it works, but it's ugly and I get stuck in the minutia rather than the big picture. When I print out the code and think through it, I tend to work out what I don't even need and what would make it all more elegant.
So you'd vote for Sadaam, someone who wants to destroy America, over Bush.
That's a position. Not one I'd take, but it is a position. I could accept a Kerry presidency. I think he's a feckless crapweasel, based on events like his role in 1986 in the Phillipines, but he wouldn't be the first feckless crapweasel we've had as president. I think Clinton proved, in terms of the use of the military, that he was feckless, and that people died for it again and again. I hate to say it, but Reagan's reactions against terrorist acts (the bombed disco and the Lebanon car bomb, to pick two) lacked feck also. (That is explainable by the fact that he was fighting WWIII as the Cold War and didn't want to dive headlong into WWIV also. This is the core reason why I'm against Kerry. But I don't think that a Kerry presidency would be the worst thing since Stalin, and I fail to understand those who want Bush dead or find electing the mentally ill or foreign-born sponsors of terrorism preferable to reelecting Bush.
Well, Kerry's does. His campaign says: "John Kerry is not George Bush".
Sadaam Hussein is not George Bush. My retarded cousin is not George Bush. Dennis Kusinich is not George Bush. Ralph Nader is not George Bush. I do not see why "not George Bush" should compel me to do anything, much less vote for Kerry.
Add in that he does indeed have a hope in hell of being elected, and that's about enough to save him from almost anything short of an indictment for Treason.
Still not seeing your point, although the combination of "Not George Bush" plus "electable" does most of my previous list.
More seriously, an attack campaign on the Democrats part would be REALLY STUPID-- even if doing so might swing the 937 popular votes needed to be the difference between winning and losing this time.
You mean there hasn't been attack campaigns coming from the Democrats? What did I see on 60 Minutes II last week?
The Republicans have been ruthless, partisan, uncompromising, and divisive.
First of all, if that was true, Daschle wouldn't have footage of him getting hugged by Bush to put in his campaign ads. Second, I see more ruthlessness and divisiveness out of the Democratic side of the aisle. Third, the way American political life is structured, it's all about partisanship. To complain that politicians are partisan is akin to complaining that fishes are wet.
This has pissed off a LOT of moderates at them. Running a negative campaign for the presidency would cost the Democrats their higher moral ground.
What higher moral ground? How is the Democratic party's power-grabbing morally superior to the Republican's?
Taking the last point first, I agree with science=success at a general level, because that truth is fairly self-evident. The decision to allow science to benefit the whole of society rather than just a part of society is a moral decision. Progress begets progress in a free society, so it's also an economic decision, so there is overlap. You were arguing that we're advancing away from morality, but I believe that advancement increases the necessity of morality. I used the other examples to flesh out my position, showing cases where technical and scientific advances don't necessarily lead to Utopia.
In the specific cases, I live in a town with a factory that builds cars and and a factory that builds semi trailers. For years, the factory would have ads that said "We're $COMPANY, which has never had a job layoff, and we're hiring. Come to $COMPANY. We've never had a job layoff. Did I mention that we've never had a job layoff?" I got so annoyed at those ads, until they had a job layoff. Robot designers are experienced and educated. I've known some. The university I attended for my CS has a Robot Vision Lab, and one of the grad students showed off to my LUG. The people who make semi-trailers may have graduated high school. They might have graduated college. It's about the same for the automobile assembly line. I used to park cars at one of those lines for like $6/hour or so. I was a graduate with a journalism degree and the people working with me were high school grads. One or two were taking a semester off from college to make some money. The most skill you need is driving a stick-shift. These people are not up to the task of designing car-door robots. (I play guitar with a guy who works on the line at the car plant. I know music theory far more than him, but on all other measures, he's much better than me. I'm not trying to dehumanize any of those people. Just making that point.) You have jobs that are unionized, so those people on the line are making a fair amount per hour, which they use to support families. You replace that job with a robot, then the person doing that job now has to look for other work.
Of course, that person has no right to that job. That's what the Right would say. You've still messed with his life. That's what the left would say, and they would point out that, between the modern invention of car-door robots and the modern invention of huge cargo ships, big cargo planes, big trucks and pervasive computer networks, I can design my car-door robot here and have the load-bearing parts cast in Pakistan and the circuitry built in Brazil and assemble the whole thing in Mexico to be placed into same factory, and even transporting the pieces all around God's green earth it costs less than giving that factory worker a job with benefits. All those decisions have moral aspects to them. By employing Pakistanis to build your stuff, you might be proving him with the funds to support his family, or you might be sticking him into a dark, satanic mill (that's a reference), which gives WTO protestors and Osama bin Laden ample reason to hate you. Or both. 50 years ago, you couldn't have built the car without that worker and still got it to an American market, so issues of robots, transportation and telecomunication have given you a multitude of questions, each of which has a moral dimension. It is one of Kerry's core issues, saying that he'll make it so that we'll gain manufacturing jobs, somehow making a $bignum-per-hour American look like a better choice than a $smallnum-per-hour worker in India or a large-initial-cost but low-recurring-cost car-door robot. But that's talking politics, not morality.
I was referencing fission technologies specifically, but a fusion-powered death ray could be placed into the metaphor. Both represent an advance in technology from what existed before. Scientific progress won't necessarily get us into Utopia; there were some pretty interesting networking and AI tricks, from voice recogition to automatic text generation to the many-to-one aspects of a television that wa
I saw a documentary on WWII where Harry Truman referred to kamikaze pilots as "cammie-kayzees" (to get close to the phonetics of it). He's considered to be one of the better presidents, even if he wasn't able to pronounce the name of the threat to our fleet at the end of WWII. "Nucular" is one of my wife's shibboleths, led by my father-in-law managing the distribution of radioactive substances in a big university, and supported by time in grad-school, where you discuss the issues in person with classmates and professors and thus understand the terms and their pronunciations. She's decided on her candidate in this election on other issues.
And, compared to his father, even Bush's off-the-cuff stump speeches sound like Shakespeare.
I don't know that your argument supports your statement. First, building robots is more technology than science, but that's a minor quibble. And that moral position can be reversed: Why employ people to do something, allowing them to feed themselves and their families, when you can build a robot to do it? And why not stop wars by building and using a new, abundant energy supply to turn their armies (and everyone else) into dark spots in the wreckage?
If you look into the history of famine and you'll find that famine comes not when the land won't grow things but when people decide to starve other people. Our farms are more productive than ever. Our airplanes and cargo ships can move vast amounts of supplies to the ends of the earth with astounding speed. That science hasn't stopped governments from starving their people. When you have no choices, you need no morality. When you are given a vast number of choices, choices advances in science and technology can give us, that is when you need morality.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a clearn advantage to a Dvorak keyboard. I have one on my box at home. It has a clutch, making it switchable between Qwerty and Dvorak. My wife, an outstanding typist, refuses to even think about using it, thus keeping people away. Advantage: Dvorak
Once, years ago, when I was still in college, I just got started with the Moz alpha and liked it. A friend suggested I look at the Opera beta, and we tested them head-to-head and quickly agreed that the Opera beta was alpha-quality at best and the Moz alpha was functional for everyday use. I've occasionally downloaded Opera, but never for more as a toy, testing browser.
I sort-of admin VMS, and I think it has an "append" attribute, so you can dump to a file (like logs) without the ability to go in and change something in the middle or delete the whole thing. I like this.
How so? The stats show we give much money (second to Sweden) and get poor results. You reward the system that works and gives a model to the systems that don't. I get your point, honest I do, but it seems forward to me.
There is one effects shot in V for Vendetta. The destruction of Big Ben. There is nothing else in the story that requires big budget filmmaking. You could very easily do V on a Pi budget.
The big problem is the mask. The face is the emotive part of the body, and actors hate hiding it. You'd have to have a terrific actor in order to fill the role, because he has to act from behind the mask and never come out. This would be more of an issue to the studios than to the audiences, I think, but V dresses like Guy Fawkes, and I barely got the reference when reading it. The studios would ask "Is there any way you can make this something a Yankee could recognize?
My guess is that automated driving will be more trusted and more likely along longer, straighter, more regular and less complex routes, which would put Greyhound and big trucking as a big early adopter, your local bus lines as a second, as an option for upmarket sedans and SUVs third, and taxis last. Also related to this is the fact that part of the job of a local route bus driver and the taxi driver is collecting money.
I could easily see a magnetically-detectable "rail" down the passing lane, sending little if no digital data but rather indicating where a good, well-behaved automated vehicle should be operating. Considering how often we totally swap out the paving on our interstate highway system, we could have that installed ubiquitously within a decade. Position and destination would come from the GPS system and look-ahead radar and other sensors could easily map out obstacles over a great distance (but would play havoc with fuzz-busters). This would give the "cleanest", most predictable environment for these vehicles. I'd trust one of these computerized vehicles on I90 between Sioux Falls and Rapid City a lot more than I would trust them in midtown Manhattan, at least for the first and second generation.
Years ago, when I was a student web worker, I installed an early Moz version, an alpha, on my work Linux box, and it quickly took over from Netscape as my prime browser. A friend stopped by the cube and pimped Opera, so I tried that. It became clear, very quickly, that there was a clear difference in the quality of code between Moz and Opera. "Do you mean it's beta, like in the Mozilla Alpha release", I would ask, "or do you mean alpha, like the Opera Beta?" I usually download Opera when I get a new work machine, to keep up on progress and to use when I want to test compatability, but I've never seriously used it as a prime browser.
#1 market for music sales is teenage girls. #2 market is teenage boys. Teenagers have small income, but it's mostly disposable. Teenager, as a rule, don't have house payments, car payments, insurance and the like, so every cent earned can be given directly to Jessica Simpson or Fred Durst. And because that is a more dependable cent than what you might expect from, for example, me. For me, if it's a Miles Davis reissue, a Bob Dylan album or something from Richard Thompson that I can actually pick up at B&N, I'll have it quick but for just about everything else, I'll look it up on Allmusic or something, looking for word of mouth and usually not finding anything to listen to on MTV or pop radio. That's my preferences and everyone has their own, but you come to a point where music is of less importance than car payments and my interest in mandolin music or your interest in Krautrock makes a difference. Rhino and Razor&Tie make money repackaging the past, and that's good and wonderful, but the 2-disc reissue of Velvet Underground's Loaded is never going to buy a mansion like a Britney album will.
Look at That Thing You Do. A band had a pop song that was written by the band, and it got turned into a hit single. Within standard pop, I can't recall the last artist who came out without a svengali and with largely self-written songs. Maybe Michelle Branch. To slip back, they're creating their own Wonders these days, and building them with a slightly longer shelf-life so that the initial investment. There's good stuff bubbling up here and there. Personally, if anyone cares, I'd pimp Chris Thile as an incredible artist, but I think I'd push Not All Who Wander Are Lost over his new album, Deceiver, and his work in the band Nickel Creek over either unless I knew your taste. But much of the music I listen to is older than me, and much that isn't is at least old enough to legally drive, and part of the reason for that is that the labels are more interested in pushing what they know they can sell than putting out something they think they might.
It's more than just the nukes. The US Navy is the second largest Air Force in the world and the only blue water navy out there. In many nations, they could never have equivalents to our Rangers, Delta or Special Forces, because those in power would worry that people out of that unit would kill the current leader and/or take over, and Anwar Sadat and Col. Muammar Qadhafi are examples of why.
In 1982, the British Navy had to press into service cargo ships and ferries in order to bring enough of a force to the Falklands to invade, and even then, they had fewer invaders than the Argentina had defenders.
At that time, Britain had the world's third largest navy.
During the Balkans war, the Royal Air Force flew the second highest number of bombing sorties, over #3 by a large margin. They flew 4%.
Europe settles differences by politics and negotiations, and the US settles its differences with Europe the same way. Considering they had 2 major wars in Europe in the last 100 years and none in the last 50, when the US was there to protect them from the big, bad outside world, I'm glad they've switched, even if it means few peacekeepers.
China likes trade. China is growing. China, to grow, needs oil and concrete. China groans and points at Taiwan on occasion, but China is not going to fight any time soon. Big bombers and hidden guys with laser sights will destroy any combined might that tries to crush the US, then the capitol buildings of the nations that put those forces together, should it come to that. Honestly, messing with trade relations is a much bigger concern than invasion.
I could be blind, but I don't see that happening in the world.
Is there something I'm missing? Any chance of a US/Russia warfare ended something like 15 years ago.
That's so true.
Correlation does not indicate causation.
IR sensor + heads-up display = better, safer through-fog driving. Maybe.
When I code at the computer, I tend to work in clumps, making this work, then that, then the other, and it works, but it's ugly and I get stuck in the minutia rather than the big picture. When I print out the code and think through it, I tend to work out what I don't even need and what would make it all more elegant.
Everybody knows that's a reference to The Dish , right?
What does poison ivy look like? Could that snake be venomous? Where are we?
Teledildonics
Bush has done more to destroy this country that Sadam ever could hope to in a million years.
I don't see that. You'd best explain.
By the way, I never suggested that I wanted Bush dead.
I'm not saying you believe that. I'm saying I've seen that, or comments near to it, and I see nothing in reality that justifies it.
So you'd vote for Sadaam, someone who wants to destroy America, over Bush.
That's a position. Not one I'd take, but it is a position. I could accept a Kerry presidency. I think he's a feckless crapweasel, based on events like his role in 1986 in the Phillipines, but he wouldn't be the first feckless crapweasel we've had as president. I think Clinton proved, in terms of the use of the military, that he was feckless, and that people died for it again and again. I hate to say it, but Reagan's reactions against terrorist acts (the bombed disco and the Lebanon car bomb, to pick two) lacked feck also. (That is explainable by the fact that he was fighting WWIII as the Cold War and didn't want to dive headlong into WWIV also. This is the core reason why I'm against Kerry. But I don't think that a Kerry presidency would be the worst thing since Stalin, and I fail to understand those who want Bush dead or find electing the mentally ill or foreign-born sponsors of terrorism preferable to reelecting Bush.
Well, Kerry's does. His campaign says: "John Kerry is not George Bush".
Sadaam Hussein is not George Bush. My retarded cousin is not George Bush. Dennis Kusinich is not George Bush. Ralph Nader is not George Bush. I do not see why "not George Bush" should compel me to do anything, much less vote for Kerry.
Add in that he does indeed have a hope in hell of being elected, and that's about enough to save him from almost anything short of an indictment for Treason.
Still not seeing your point, although the combination of "Not George Bush" plus "electable" does most of my previous list.
More seriously, an attack campaign on the Democrats part would be REALLY STUPID-- even if doing so might swing the 937 popular votes needed to be the difference between winning and losing this time.
You mean there hasn't been attack campaigns coming from the Democrats? What did I see on 60 Minutes II last week?
The Republicans have been ruthless, partisan, uncompromising, and divisive.
First of all, if that was true, Daschle wouldn't have footage of him getting hugged by Bush to put in his campaign ads. Second, I see more ruthlessness and divisiveness out of the Democratic side of the aisle. Third, the way American political life is structured, it's all about partisanship. To complain that politicians are partisan is akin to complaining that fishes are wet.
This has pissed off a LOT of moderates at them. Running a negative campaign for the presidency would cost the Democrats their higher moral ground.
What higher moral ground? How is the Democratic party's power-grabbing morally superior to the Republican's?
Taking the last point first, I agree with science=success at a general level, because that truth is fairly self-evident. The decision to allow science to benefit the whole of society rather than just a part of society is a moral decision. Progress begets progress in a free society, so it's also an economic decision, so there is overlap. You were arguing that we're advancing away from morality, but I believe that advancement increases the necessity of morality. I used the other examples to flesh out my position, showing cases where technical and scientific advances don't necessarily lead to Utopia.
In the specific cases, I live in a town with a factory that builds cars and and a factory that builds semi trailers. For years, the factory would have ads that said "We're $COMPANY, which has never had a job layoff, and we're hiring. Come to $COMPANY. We've never had a job layoff. Did I mention that we've never had a job layoff?" I got so annoyed at those ads, until they had a job layoff. Robot designers are experienced and educated. I've known some. The university I attended for my CS has a Robot Vision Lab, and one of the grad students showed off to my LUG. The people who make semi-trailers may have graduated high school. They might have graduated college. It's about the same for the automobile assembly line. I used to park cars at one of those lines for like $6/hour or so. I was a graduate with a journalism degree and the people working with me were high school grads. One or two were taking a semester off from college to make some money. The most skill you need is driving a stick-shift. These people are not up to the task of designing car-door robots. (I play guitar with a guy who works on the line at the car plant. I know music theory far more than him, but on all other measures, he's much better than me. I'm not trying to dehumanize any of those people. Just making that point.) You have jobs that are unionized, so those people on the line are making a fair amount per hour, which they use to support families. You replace that job with a robot, then the person doing that job now has to look for other work.
Of course, that person has no right to that job. That's what the Right would say. You've still messed with his life. That's what the left would say, and they would point out that, between the modern invention of car-door robots and the modern invention of huge cargo ships, big cargo planes, big trucks and pervasive computer networks, I can design my car-door robot here and have the load-bearing parts cast in Pakistan and the circuitry built in Brazil and assemble the whole thing in Mexico to be placed into same factory, and even transporting the pieces all around God's green earth it costs less than giving that factory worker a job with benefits. All those decisions have moral aspects to them. By employing Pakistanis to build your stuff, you might be proving him with the funds to support his family, or you might be sticking him into a dark, satanic mill (that's a reference), which gives WTO protestors and Osama bin Laden ample reason to hate you. Or both. 50 years ago, you couldn't have built the car without that worker and still got it to an American market, so issues of robots, transportation and telecomunication have given you a multitude of questions, each of which has a moral dimension. It is one of Kerry's core issues, saying that he'll make it so that we'll gain manufacturing jobs, somehow making a $bignum-per-hour American look like a better choice than a $smallnum-per-hour worker in India or a large-initial-cost but low-recurring-cost car-door robot. But that's talking politics, not morality.
I was referencing fission technologies specifically, but a fusion-powered death ray could be placed into the metaphor. Both represent an advance in technology from what existed before. Scientific progress won't necessarily get us into Utopia; there were some pretty interesting networking and AI tricks, from voice recogition to automatic text generation to the many-to-one aspects of a television that wa
I saw a documentary on WWII where Harry Truman referred to kamikaze pilots as "cammie-kayzees" (to get close to the phonetics of it). He's considered to be one of the better presidents, even if he wasn't able to pronounce the name of the threat to our fleet at the end of WWII. "Nucular" is one of my wife's shibboleths, led by my father-in-law managing the distribution of radioactive substances in a big university, and supported by time in grad-school, where you discuss the issues in person with classmates and professors and thus understand the terms and their pronunciations. She's decided on her candidate in this election on other issues.
And, compared to his father, even Bush's off-the-cuff stump speeches sound like Shakespeare.
I don't know that your argument supports your statement. First, building robots is more technology than science, but that's a minor quibble. And that moral position can be reversed: Why employ people to do something, allowing them to feed themselves and their families, when you can build a robot to do it? And why not stop wars by building and using a new, abundant energy supply to turn their armies (and everyone else) into dark spots in the wreckage?
If you look into the history of famine and you'll find that famine comes not when the land won't grow things but when people decide to starve other people. Our farms are more productive than ever. Our airplanes and cargo ships can move vast amounts of supplies to the ends of the earth with astounding speed. That science hasn't stopped governments from starving their people. When you have no choices, you need no morality. When you are given a vast number of choices, choices advances in science and technology can give us, that is when you need morality.
OK. I now, officially and for all time, apologize for calling it Slowlaris! Never again, I promise!