No. Even if no new jobs were created, the effect of automation would simply be that everybody could work less while maintaining the same standard of living.
Work less? Why work at all?
Many jobs
A few. A grand majority of jobs can be automated. Not everyone wants to be artists, actors, musicians, or other such things, and in fact, not even close to a grand majority of people could do such things. There will come a point where our system will need to be fundamentally changed in order to cope with advanced AI.
That was the question. Since the NSA is gathering data (metadata is data) on just about everyone--that is, violating people's rights--I do believe they are far worse than the child porn bogeyman. For one thing, the production of child porn doesn't affect nearly as many people.
I'd say so. The NSA is a government organization that's violating just about everyone's rights; that's many orders of magnitudes worse than the child porn bogeyman.
is that the injured party in one case (the business) suffers tangible harm (loses business)
Where is this tangible harm, and can they prove it? This is ridiculous. They never *had* that business or money to begin with. Money that you could've had was not yours to begin with; you lost nothing.
The first amendment says *nothing* about libel being an exception. Furthermore, they needed to identify these people because they weren't sure if they were customers, and how is that just? They can just strip someone of anonymity to check their innocence? Something seems wrong about this picture.
That perspective is utterly worthless; freedom and privacy are what's important. The fact that such a thing could be abused doesn't mean that anonymity shouldn't be allowed in such cases. Now all you have to do is accuse anonymous reviewers of not being customers to remove what little anonymity they have.
I think it's pretty depressing what a low opinion you have of your fellow human beings.
I think you're a bit too optimistic.
And these people are human beings and capable of learning and growing.
They're capable of it, but their actual ability to do so is utterly unimpressive; most people are unintelligent.
What could they do? Landscaping, gardening, custom wood or metal work, junk removal, uber cab driving, grocery delivery, web content quality control, furniture assembly, 3D printer operator, etc. There are tons of useful jobs an average human being can learn within a few months and make a good living at.
And what do you do when even those jobs are replaced by technology? Eventually, there's going to be a point where there simply aren't nearly enough jobs.
By legalizing the really nasty stuff with a large market (I.E. stuff up the scale from pot[2]) you've already established the principle that damage is acceptable.
That's because damage is acceptable. That's the price you pay for living in a free society, and I'll gladly pay it. Unfortunately, authoritarian thugs seem to be the majority.
Wrong. The US is supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Individual freedom should remain alive. It's you people who should move to North Korea; you are to thank for the TSA, the NSA, stop-and-frisk constitution-free zones, unfettered border searches, DUI checkpoints, and pretty much everything that involves the violation of the constitution and people's rights. You could just move to North Korea, you know.
In the cases of fundamental liberties, the group can go fuck itself; that's tyranny of the majority.
Generally, historically, the people who feel that the luddites should just suck it up and adapt do not realize how much of their new lifestyle depends on programs slowing the transition or how likely they would be poor too if the shift was left purely to its own schedule.
If the system is making us more inefficient (by slowing the adoption of efficient technology), then the system is working against us. Period.
1) Yes I have... Haven't seen anything that any other country doesn't do as part of a border crossing.
"Everyone else is doing it" is not a justification for violating people's rights and/or the constitution. Since the US is supposed to be the best country, mindlessly copying what other countries do is not something I'd expect from it; I'd expect us to try to be better than them.
A lot of people hate freedom. That's why we have the TSA, the NSA, free speech zones, stop-and-frisk, constitution-free zones, unfettered border searches, and your precious drug war. I'd tell you to enjoy all of it, but sadly, this nonsense affects me, too; why don't you pieces of trash move to North Korea, rather than ruin every other country on the planet?
The mere fact that drugs could lead to certain people committing crimes does not justify banning them. Any truly free country cares more about freedom than security. There are no truly free countries; there is only trash.
There is no difference. I'm concerned with liberty of all forms. You seem to be saying that everything you don't care about isn't liberty. I see it as a rights issue when governments ban drugs, not a mere license issue.
But freedom isn't what you want. It is not your goal.
Between the two of us I have little doubt about who is more likely to be a slave to a habit, and it isn't me.
What I do or don't do is completely irrelevant. But I've never taken any drugs. Just like I can support gay marriage without being gay, I can support the legalization of drugs without wanting to do drugs. I just care about other people's freedom... unlike you.
You've made it clear that liberty isn't your thing, despite living in "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Sadly, you don't want to be free, and you're surely not brave.
It's land of the politically free, not common-sense-free.
Freedom only in the realm of politics isn't something to aspire to, and that's not what is promised. And if it's "common sense" (Whatever that means; it might've been "common sense" in certain places that the world was flat at one point.) to ban entire products because they're unhealthy, then I don't want anything to do with this "common sense" nonsense. I want freedom, not some idiot's notion of "common sense."
Since I believe in freedom, I believe cocaine should be legal. I'm not sure why anyone in a country that's supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave" would believe otherwise; surely they don't think that safety is more important than freedom?
Not done. You have to find me zealously clinging to a fringe, puritanical belief first.
You're zealously opposing me. It doesn't surprise me that you disagree with my assertion, as I'm insulting you.
You're throwing the term around in the same way a four year old says "poopy head".
Such as what you've been doing this entire time?
How is 95% of the desktop market "specific?" Windows?
If you "educate" people so that they can only use specific pieces of software or certain operating systems, something is wrong to begin with. Your fear of people not being able to use other operating systems (Windows) or software when they get out of school would be unfounded if we had a decent education system.
Which is why you're a nut.
Which is why you're a nut.
Do you insist on learning how to fly before booking a trip via Southwest? Do you get a medical degree before seeing a doctor?
What's this nonsense got to do with the ability to look at and modify source code? Another benefit is that you can inspect it to see that it doesn't do anything nefarious, like, for instance, remove copies of people's books (1984). That didn't happen with the iPad, but it is a mere example.
You have nothing but an empty tautology that fits you and the five other free-as-in-Kool-Aid nutters on the planet.
So you say.
If you want an iPad, don't buy one. It's that simple.
I never bought one, and never will. But this is about educational environments using taxpayer dollars to buy locked-down, DRM-infested products.
Slashdot Mirror
No. Even if no new jobs were created, the effect of automation would simply be that everybody could work less while maintaining the same standard of living.
Work less? Why work at all?
Many jobs
A few. A grand majority of jobs can be automated. Not everyone wants to be artists, actors, musicians, or other such things, and in fact, not even close to a grand majority of people could do such things. There will come a point where our system will need to be fundamentally changed in order to cope with advanced AI.
"Is the NSA worse than child porn?"
That was the question. Since the NSA is gathering data (metadata is data) on just about everyone--that is, violating people's rights--I do believe they are far worse than the child porn bogeyman. For one thing, the production of child porn doesn't affect nearly as many people.
I'd say so. The NSA is a government organization that's violating just about everyone's rights; that's many orders of magnitudes worse than the child porn bogeyman.
Before the leaks, who really thought that much about the NSA and what it was doing?
People who actually paid attention?
is that the injured party in one case (the business) suffers tangible harm (loses business)
Where is this tangible harm, and can they prove it? This is ridiculous. They never *had* that business or money to begin with. Money that you could've had was not yours to begin with; you lost nothing.
The first amendment says *nothing* about libel being an exception. Furthermore, they needed to identify these people because they weren't sure if they were customers, and how is that just? They can just strip someone of anonymity to check their innocence? Something seems wrong about this picture.
Were you trying to make a joke? It looks like it to me.
But consider it from another perspective
That perspective is utterly worthless; freedom and privacy are what's important. The fact that such a thing could be abused doesn't mean that anonymity shouldn't be allowed in such cases. Now all you have to do is accuse anonymous reviewers of not being customers to remove what little anonymity they have.
I think the problem was that we went to war to begin with.
They're only getting smarter if you've been duped into thinking that IQ measures intelligence; in reality, it's mere pseudoscience.
I think it's pretty depressing what a low opinion you have of your fellow human beings.
I think you're a bit too optimistic.
And these people are human beings and capable of learning and growing.
They're capable of it, but their actual ability to do so is utterly unimpressive; most people are unintelligent.
What could they do? Landscaping, gardening, custom wood or metal work, junk removal, uber cab driving, grocery delivery, web content quality control, furniture assembly, 3D printer operator, etc. There are tons of useful jobs an average human being can learn within a few months and make a good living at.
And what do you do when even those jobs are replaced by technology? Eventually, there's going to be a point where there simply aren't nearly enough jobs.
Trying to hunt down random idiots in run-down countries is absolutely idiotic. None of these wars should've ever happened.
By legalizing the really nasty stuff with a large market (I.E. stuff up the scale from pot[2]) you've already established the principle that damage is acceptable.
That's because damage is acceptable. That's the price you pay for living in a free society, and I'll gladly pay it. Unfortunately, authoritarian thugs seem to be the majority.
Wrong. The US is supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Individual freedom should remain alive. It's you people who should move to North Korea; you are to thank for the TSA, the NSA, stop-and-frisk constitution-free zones, unfettered border searches, DUI checkpoints, and pretty much everything that involves the violation of the constitution and people's rights. You could just move to North Korea, you know.
In the cases of fundamental liberties, the group can go fuck itself; that's tyranny of the majority.
The problem with drugs like heroin and cocaine
Are all irrelevant. Freedom is what's important.
Generally, historically, the people who feel that the luddites should just suck it up and adapt do not realize how much of their new lifestyle depends on programs slowing the transition or how likely they would be poor too if the shift was left purely to its own schedule.
If the system is making us more inefficient (by slowing the adoption of efficient technology), then the system is working against us. Period.
1) Yes I have... Haven't seen anything that any other country doesn't do as part of a border crossing.
"Everyone else is doing it" is not a justification for violating people's rights and/or the constitution. Since the US is supposed to be the best country, mindlessly copying what other countries do is not something I'd expect from it; I'd expect us to try to be better than them.
2) No it's not.
What makes you think so?
A lot of people hate freedom. That's why we have the TSA, the NSA, free speech zones, stop-and-frisk, constitution-free zones, unfettered border searches, and your precious drug war. I'd tell you to enjoy all of it, but sadly, this nonsense affects me, too; why don't you pieces of trash move to North Korea, rather than ruin every other country on the planet?
The mere fact that drugs could lead to certain people committing crimes does not justify banning them. Any truly free country cares more about freedom than security. There are no truly free countries; there is only trash.
There is no difference. I'm concerned with liberty of all forms. You seem to be saying that everything you don't care about isn't liberty. I see it as a rights issue when governments ban drugs, not a mere license issue.
I am free
But freedom isn't what you want. It is not your goal.
Between the two of us I have little doubt about who is more likely to be a slave to a habit, and it isn't me.
What I do or don't do is completely irrelevant. But I've never taken any drugs. Just like I can support gay marriage without being gay, I can support the legalization of drugs without wanting to do drugs. I just care about other people's freedom... unlike you.
You've made it clear that liberty isn't your thing, despite living in "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Sadly, you don't want to be free, and you're surely not brave.
It's land of the politically free, not common-sense-free.
Freedom only in the realm of politics isn't something to aspire to, and that's not what is promised. And if it's "common sense" (Whatever that means; it might've been "common sense" in certain places that the world was flat at one point.) to ban entire products because they're unhealthy, then I don't want anything to do with this "common sense" nonsense. I want freedom, not some idiot's notion of "common sense."
Since I believe in freedom, I believe cocaine should be legal. I'm not sure why anyone in a country that's supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave" would believe otherwise; surely they don't think that safety is more important than freedom?
Not done. You have to find me zealously clinging to a fringe, puritanical belief first.
You're zealously opposing me. It doesn't surprise me that you disagree with my assertion, as I'm insulting you.
You're throwing the term around in the same way a four year old says "poopy head".
Such as what you've been doing this entire time?
How is 95% of the desktop market "specific?" Windows?
If you "educate" people so that they can only use specific pieces of software or certain operating systems, something is wrong to begin with. Your fear of people not being able to use other operating systems (Windows) or software when they get out of school would be unfounded if we had a decent education system.
Which is why you're a nut.
Which is why you're a nut.
Do you insist on learning how to fly before booking a trip via Southwest? Do you get a medical degree before seeing a doctor?
What's this nonsense got to do with the ability to look at and modify source code? Another benefit is that you can inspect it to see that it doesn't do anything nefarious, like, for instance, remove copies of people's books (1984). That didn't happen with the iPad, but it is a mere example.
You have nothing but an empty tautology that fits you and the five other free-as-in-Kool-Aid nutters on the planet.
So you say.
If you want an iPad, don't buy one. It's that simple.
I never bought one, and never will. But this is about educational environments using taxpayer dollars to buy locked-down, DRM-infested products.