Until we can identify the problem, we can't adequately craft a solution. And poverty isn't the problem, it's the symptom. The problem is a lack of jobs for people to do. And it's won't going to get worse, because automation *will* replace almost all jobs, starting with the lowest paying jobs first. Transportation, food service, construction, waste management, manufacturing, agriculture and livestock, retail (especially inventory management), logistics and deliveries, and housekeeping/landscaping are all prime targets.
Maybe it won't happen in 25 or 50 years. I think it will, but maybe it won't. But regardless of whether it's 50 years or 200 years (which I think is overly generous), it will happen, and the progression will likely be logarithmic rather than linear, as each successfully automated industry lays the groundwork for the next.
Humans will still be desirable in many roles -- arts and entertainment, customer relations, supervisory roles -- but even if everyone could perform those roles adequately, which is a stretch, there still won't be enough demand to keep everyone employed. We need to think about what we want a society with very few jobs to look like: how we adequately incentivize the few jobs that will remain or be created, but more importantly, how we subsidize the ones that go away.
As for dealing with poverty in general, the Netflix documentary "Poverty, Inc." is enlightening, if only to illustrate how good intentions go bad. I have both worked in the humanitarian sector, and have friends who still do, and it's pretty spot-on regarding the pitfalls of humanitarian work, even if the capitalistic prescription is, IMO, just as unsustainable, due to the future of job scarcity.
Autopilot definitely swerves to avoid collisions. Mostly those with terrain, and mostly by following prepublished flight paths, but swerve it does. Some military aircraft have terrain following radar as well. And it could well be argued that any pitch adjustment to maintain altitude is terrain avoidance, by definition.
Yes, it's trivial. When I had my GMail account pwned, I emailed them, and a human helpfully verified my identity, the suspicious activity, and restored my access. Don't just assume it's impossible without trying. And if it doesn't work, just be more persistent. The squeaky wheel, and all that.
You're arguing semantics. Gore ran on, among other things, tax cuts[1] and increased military spending[2]. He supported the Afghanistan War AND the Iraq War[3,4]. He chose Joe Lieberman as VP, who is quite possibly the most right-leaning Democrat in the Senate in the past 40 years[5], who vehemently supported the Iraq War -- so much so that he endorsed John McCain in 2008, supports the death penalty, introduced a bill to strip US persons of their citizenship without due process, supports censorship in entertainment, games, and online. Joe Lieberman is basically George Bush with a stronger grasp of the English language. Back to Gore: He was aggressively free-trade[6], he wanted to keep medical marijuana illegal and double down on the War on Drugs[7], and he supported a "tough on crime" policy that included expanding the death penalty, mandatory minimum sentencing, and segregated schools for youth offenders[8]. He supported extraordinary rendition (kidnapping)[9] and pushed heavily for backdoors to encryption[10] while VP.
So yes, the GP is exactly right when he says we can't be sure Gore would have been better, and that even if he had done better on some issues, he may have been far worse on others, and thus worse overall.
Back then, we called it "copy protection." Because that's what it was. DRM is to copy protection what a tree is to fruit. Or perhaps, as a better analogy, what Sony BMG CDs are to rootkits.
True, but I see the point -- you still have to show that you've done that. You still have to show that the plaintext is, in fact, a result of the ciphertext when a transformation is applied using a given key and not just some plaintext that you've invented.
It depends on why you're watching in the first place. If you're trying to cram your entertainment into the smallest timeslice possible, either because you're low on free time, or high on ADD, then go for it. But if the point is to enjoy the presentation or to kill some time, then why speed-up? You've only decreased the amount of time you can enjoy the show, or increased your work in finding something else to occupy your time. And if the point is just to get caught up on the plot, then why watch at all? Just read the summaries online in 1/60th of the time it takes to watch an episode. Pleasurable events -- whether it's eating, or sex, or watching a show -- can be completed very quickly, but many people would argue, myself included, that it detracts from the experience and lowers appreciation rather than enhancing it.
This whole issue is a moot case at best, a corner case at worst, and FUD in any case. The scenario where a fully-functioning autonomous vehicle might encounter an unexpected crowd of people is nearly zero, let alone a scenario where the vehicle would have to react in a way that is likely to kill the driver. This almost never happens in real life with human drivers -- almost all multiple-pedestrian fatalities are deliberate or reckless acts such as DWI. The car should be programmed to follow the rules of the road. If someone steps in front of a vehicle, it should stop if possible, and if it can't, sorry. You don't blame a train if a group of kids are playing on the tracks.
More importantly, with autonomous vehicles, all fatalities will plummet, including driver, other-driver, passenger, pedestrian, and cyclist, because most accidents are the result of user error. Computers are far more reliable than even the most vigilant drivers, they have better reaction time, and with proper sensory input, they can monitor a wider array of variables than humans. As any developer knows, the weakest link is, by far, the developer. Proper exhaustive testing will reduce the number of errors, and while even a rate of accidents on-par with an average human driver would be acceptable to me personally, the actual rate of at-fault accidents by autonomous vehicles so far has been much, much, lower, with zero fatalities (that I'm aware of).
The biggest risks that I would be aware of are security risks that could affect a large swath of vehicles all at once. If someone were to, say, disable the LIDAR of all of brand X cars simultaneously, that could be far more catastrophic than this "who to save" exercise in mental mastrubation.
Don't anthropomorphize evolution! Evolution doesn't have an agenda. Cells don't exhibit goal-oriented behavior. There is no intelligence behind any of it. Changes just happen, and they're either propagated, or they're not. The sun doesn't exist in order to keep us warm or give us light; it simply exists due to natural processes, and our species has adapted to take advantage of the resources it provides. Similarly, we don't have eyes in order to see; we see because eyes exist, and they exist due to natural processes (one we call evolution), and our species has adapted to take advantage of sight. The same for organs, bones, muscles -- even cells themselves.
The idea that cancer has a purpose is absurd. It's a natural consequence of cancer that dead people can't reproduce. The "gene pool" didn't get together, have a discussion, and decide that the best way to limit faulty genes was to kill off organisms, and the method of death would be uncontrollable cellular division. In fact, people with cancer can still reproduce, frequently. It's more like a system pushed beyond performance limits, except those limits were arbitrarily established through random processes. If you force too much fuel and air into an engine, it might self-destruct. That's not to protect the pool of cars on the road from engines that are too powerful. The same holds true of cancer -- if you feed too many mutations into a cell, that cell may start replicating out of control. Death may (or may not) result. The end.
Destroyed? Absolutely not. Since most states require insurance, there's no to believe that insurance wouldn't exist on self-driving cars. Even if it's not required, it's foolish not to carry insurance on something that expensive relative to the average income. More importantly, insurance companies lose money with accidents. The fewer the accidents, the higher their profit. And as self-driving cars become more reliable (as one would expect), the rates would trend lower, as with any good driver. In the event that the car manufacturer is responsible for an accident, the insurance company will simply pursue them for damages, just like they do now.
Likewise, the rates for human-driven cars will trend higher as the pool of human-driven cars decreases and there are fewer drivers among which to spread the risk. And that risk will go up, since the drivers that cling to human-driven cars will, by definition, be bigger risk-takers, since the most responsible thing to do is to abdicate control to a more reliable actor. Those who can't afford self-driving cars will eventually be the same people who already have higher rates -- those with bad credit.
That's not to say that some industries won't be hard-hit by self-driving cars. The state and local traffic-ticket industry will be devastated. DWI lawyers will become a niche market, and for-profits jails will have fewer inmates, both from DWIs, and the byproducts of vehicle searches during traffic stops. The wrecker industry will be decimated. Emergency rooms will see a significant downtick in customers. Taxi, limousine, and commercial drivers will become obsolete, although the industries themselves may actually grow.
That makes sense now -- the driveway slopes away from the road. He may have stopped at the top, then got out to grab the mail or close the gate, or whatever. Whether he was caught off guard or deliberately tried to stop the car doesn't really matter -- he was screwed either way. If he had been aware AND tried to get out of the way, then he might have been okay, but it's understandable to have a knee-jerk reaction to try to protect your vehicle and/or property. Definitely not worth trying, though.
Volkswagen has admitted cheating on it's emissions tests. When the vehicles are stationary and the steering wheel is not being moved, power from the battery is applied directly to the wheels. In normal driving, however, 80% of the power is diverted to a Power-to-Gas system, which is then dumped directly into the atmosphere for no apparent reason whatsoever.
Elevation GPS measurements are about an order of magnitude less accurate than lat/lon on average, and sometimes far worse. Part of this is the quality of consumer-grade receivers, but mostly it's just geometry. If you're interested, there's more information here. You can get better measurements if you stay in one spot long enough (say, 24 hours), and your GPS receiver will perform long-term averaging, but neither of those things are likely to be characteristics of a mobile device. Plus, as someone else mentioned, you're not likely to get good reception indoors.
I don't understand why anyone would install an FB mobile app in the first place, their web site works fine on a phone.
For now. It's not hard to imagine FB refusing to serve the page and pushing users to download the app.
FB Messenger? That's just teenage stupidity; every phone that will run FB Messenger already has texting.
Not everyone wants to give out their mobile number to people they want to communicate with. That said, they're arguably losing more privacy by communicating through Facebook, but Facebook is a known quantity (or at least users believe it is), where Mike from "that party last week" may be somewhat of an unknown.
Honestly, we shouldn't be in this situation at all. We've had 20+ years to standardize instant messaging, and failed miserably. XMPP has been discarded by all but the most fringe players -- probably because nobody thought to bake-in security, despite the fact that we've known that security cannot be an afterthought since well before XMPP came on the scene. All of the viable consolidated chat platforms have been locked, sued, or bought out of existence, if they haven't failed on their own, and that's probably for the best as well since they stored usernames and passwords for third-party accounts.
To take some liberties with Kennedy's words: I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of the development and ubiquitous implementation of a public IM protocol, interoperable among all platforms, with configurable end-to-end encryption, and for email as well. No single project in this period will be less impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range security of communications; and none will be so difficult to accomplish.
What happens when someone who's not on a watch list commits a heinous crime on US soil, and law enforcement can't identify the person, unmasked, in good quality surveillance footage?
I'll give you a hint: They add their image or likeness to the "Wanted" page here as "Unknown Suspect" or "Unknown Individual."
Slashdot Mirror
How does this compare to sapphire crystal? If unfavorably, why are we still talking about it?
Until we can identify the problem, we can't adequately craft a solution. And poverty isn't the problem, it's the symptom. The problem is a lack of jobs for people to do. And it's won't going to get worse, because automation *will* replace almost all jobs, starting with the lowest paying jobs first. Transportation, food service, construction, waste management, manufacturing, agriculture and livestock, retail (especially inventory management), logistics and deliveries, and housekeeping/landscaping are all prime targets.
Maybe it won't happen in 25 or 50 years. I think it will, but maybe it won't. But regardless of whether it's 50 years or 200 years (which I think is overly generous), it will happen, and the progression will likely be logarithmic rather than linear, as each successfully automated industry lays the groundwork for the next.
Humans will still be desirable in many roles -- arts and entertainment, customer relations, supervisory roles -- but even if everyone could perform those roles adequately, which is a stretch, there still won't be enough demand to keep everyone employed. We need to think about what we want a society with very few jobs to look like: how we adequately incentivize the few jobs that will remain or be created, but more importantly, how we subsidize the ones that go away.
As for dealing with poverty in general, the Netflix documentary "Poverty, Inc." is enlightening, if only to illustrate how good intentions go bad. I have both worked in the humanitarian sector, and have friends who still do, and it's pretty spot-on regarding the pitfalls of humanitarian work, even if the capitalistic prescription is, IMO, just as unsustainable, due to the future of job scarcity.
Autopilot definitely swerves to avoid collisions. Mostly those with terrain, and mostly by following prepublished flight paths, but swerve it does. Some military aircraft have terrain following radar as well. And it could well be argued that any pitch adjustment to maintain altitude is terrain avoidance, by definition.
It would be interesting if you could build credit like that though. But I suppose it would also create perverse incentives.
Well, it takes two to tango, but the autopilot failed to stop just as much as the truck (may have) failed to yield.
This is the very reason why physical security is a joke, and all video games and movies with vigilant guards are a joke.
Yes, it's trivial. When I had my GMail account pwned, I emailed them, and a human helpfully verified my identity, the suspicious activity, and restored my access. Don't just assume it's impossible without trying. And if it doesn't work, just be more persistent. The squeaky wheel, and all that.
You're arguing semantics. Gore ran on, among other things, tax cuts[1] and increased military spending[2]. He supported the Afghanistan War AND the Iraq War[3,4]. He chose Joe Lieberman as VP, who is quite possibly the most right-leaning Democrat in the Senate in the past 40 years[5], who vehemently supported the Iraq War -- so much so that he endorsed John McCain in 2008, supports the death penalty, introduced a bill to strip US persons of their citizenship without due process, supports censorship in entertainment, games, and online. Joe Lieberman is basically George Bush with a stronger grasp of the English language.
Back to Gore: He was aggressively free-trade[6], he wanted to keep medical marijuana illegal and double down on the War on Drugs[7], and he supported a "tough on crime" policy that included expanding the death penalty, mandatory minimum sentencing, and segregated schools for youth offenders[8]. He supported extraordinary rendition (kidnapping)[9] and pushed heavily for backdoors to encryption[10] while VP.
So yes, the GP is exactly right when he says we can't be sure Gore would have been better, and that even if he had done better on some issues, he may have been far worse on others, and thus worse overall.
1 http://www.4president.us/issue...
2 http://cjonline.com/stories/08...
3 https://www.wsws.org/en/articl...
4 http://www.science20.com/news_...
5 http://rightweb.irc-online.org...
6 http://www.ontheissues.org/Cel...
7 http://www.november.org/razorw...
8 http://www.ontheissues.org/Cel...
9 https://seekerblog.com/2007/09...
10 http://content.time.com/time/n...
Not that I condone piracy, but if you're getting crap and/or exposing yourself to any risk, you're doing it wrong.
Back then, we called it "copy protection." Because that's what it was. DRM is to copy protection what a tree is to fruit. Or perhaps, as a better analogy, what Sony BMG CDs are to rootkits.
True, but I see the point -- you still have to show that you've done that. You still have to show that the plaintext is, in fact, a result of the ciphertext when a transformation is applied using a given key and not just some plaintext that you've invented.
Satellites are still owned by terrestrial companies that exist within national borders.
I was just looking for a way to get recordings onto a Plex Server, not a moral rationalization for piracy, but thanks for replying.
How do you get recordings onto your PC though?
It depends on why you're watching in the first place. If you're trying to cram your entertainment into the smallest timeslice possible, either because you're low on free time, or high on ADD, then go for it. But if the point is to enjoy the presentation or to kill some time, then why speed-up? You've only decreased the amount of time you can enjoy the show, or increased your work in finding something else to occupy your time. And if the point is just to get caught up on the plot, then why watch at all? Just read the summaries online in 1/60th of the time it takes to watch an episode. Pleasurable events -- whether it's eating, or sex, or watching a show -- can be completed very quickly, but many people would argue, myself included, that it detracts from the experience and lowers appreciation rather than enhancing it.
This whole issue is a moot case at best, a corner case at worst, and FUD in any case. The scenario where a fully-functioning autonomous vehicle might encounter an unexpected crowd of people is nearly zero, let alone a scenario where the vehicle would have to react in a way that is likely to kill the driver. This almost never happens in real life with human drivers -- almost all multiple-pedestrian fatalities are deliberate or reckless acts such as DWI. The car should be programmed to follow the rules of the road. If someone steps in front of a vehicle, it should stop if possible, and if it can't, sorry. You don't blame a train if a group of kids are playing on the tracks.
More importantly, with autonomous vehicles, all fatalities will plummet, including driver, other-driver, passenger, pedestrian, and cyclist, because most accidents are the result of user error. Computers are far more reliable than even the most vigilant drivers, they have better reaction time, and with proper sensory input, they can monitor a wider array of variables than humans. As any developer knows, the weakest link is, by far, the developer. Proper exhaustive testing will reduce the number of errors, and while even a rate of accidents on-par with an average human driver would be acceptable to me personally, the actual rate of at-fault accidents by autonomous vehicles so far has been much, much, lower, with zero fatalities (that I'm aware of).
The biggest risks that I would be aware of are security risks that could affect a large swath of vehicles all at once. If someone were to, say, disable the LIDAR of all of brand X cars simultaneously, that could be far more catastrophic than this "who to save" exercise in mental mastrubation.
it seems ridiculous to me that there's more regulation on operating a vehicle than there is on operating a deadly weapon
Agreed. The amount of regulation on operating a vehicle is excessive.
Don't anthropomorphize evolution! Evolution doesn't have an agenda. Cells don't exhibit goal-oriented behavior. There is no intelligence behind any of it. Changes just happen, and they're either propagated, or they're not. The sun doesn't exist in order to keep us warm or give us light; it simply exists due to natural processes, and our species has adapted to take advantage of the resources it provides. Similarly, we don't have eyes in order to see; we see because eyes exist, and they exist due to natural processes (one we call evolution), and our species has adapted to take advantage of sight. The same for organs, bones, muscles -- even cells themselves.
The idea that cancer has a purpose is absurd. It's a natural consequence of cancer that dead people can't reproduce. The "gene pool" didn't get together, have a discussion, and decide that the best way to limit faulty genes was to kill off organisms, and the method of death would be uncontrollable cellular division. In fact, people with cancer can still reproduce, frequently. It's more like a system pushed beyond performance limits, except those limits were arbitrarily established through random processes. If you force too much fuel and air into an engine, it might self-destruct. That's not to protect the pool of cars on the road from engines that are too powerful. The same holds true of cancer -- if you feed too many mutations into a cell, that cell may start replicating out of control. Death may (or may not) result. The end.
Destroyed? Absolutely not. Since most states require insurance, there's no to believe that insurance wouldn't exist on self-driving cars. Even if it's not required, it's foolish not to carry insurance on something that expensive relative to the average income. More importantly, insurance companies lose money with accidents. The fewer the accidents, the higher their profit. And as self-driving cars become more reliable (as one would expect), the rates would trend lower, as with any good driver. In the event that the car manufacturer is responsible for an accident, the insurance company will simply pursue them for damages, just like they do now.
Likewise, the rates for human-driven cars will trend higher as the pool of human-driven cars decreases and there are fewer drivers among which to spread the risk. And that risk will go up, since the drivers that cling to human-driven cars will, by definition, be bigger risk-takers, since the most responsible thing to do is to abdicate control to a more reliable actor. Those who can't afford self-driving cars will eventually be the same people who already have higher rates -- those with bad credit.
That's not to say that some industries won't be hard-hit by self-driving cars. The state and local traffic-ticket industry will be devastated. DWI lawyers will become a niche market, and for-profits jails will have fewer inmates, both from DWIs, and the byproducts of vehicle searches during traffic stops. The wrecker industry will be decimated. Emergency rooms will see a significant downtick in customers. Taxi, limousine, and commercial drivers will become obsolete, although the industries themselves may actually grow.
That makes sense now -- the driveway slopes away from the road. He may have stopped at the top, then got out to grab the mail or close the gate, or whatever. Whether he was caught off guard or deliberately tried to stop the car doesn't really matter -- he was screwed either way. If he had been aware AND tried to get out of the way, then he might have been okay, but it's understandable to have a knee-jerk reaction to try to protect your vehicle and/or property. Definitely not worth trying, though.
Volkswagen has admitted cheating on it's emissions tests. When the vehicles are stationary and the steering wheel is not being moved, power from the battery is applied directly to the wheels. In normal driving, however, 80% of the power is diverted to a Power-to-Gas system, which is then dumped directly into the atmosphere for no apparent reason whatsoever.
Elevation GPS measurements are about an order of magnitude less accurate than lat/lon on average, and sometimes far worse. Part of this is the quality of consumer-grade receivers, but mostly it's just geometry. If you're interested, there's more information here. You can get better measurements if you stay in one spot long enough (say, 24 hours), and your GPS receiver will perform long-term averaging, but neither of those things are likely to be characteristics of a mobile device. Plus, as someone else mentioned, you're not likely to get good reception indoors.
Beacons, though. :)
Let me guess -- you don't own a television either?
I don't understand why anyone would install an FB mobile app in the first place, their web site works fine on a phone.
For now. It's not hard to imagine FB refusing to serve the page and pushing users to download the app.
FB Messenger? That's just teenage stupidity; every phone that will run FB Messenger already has texting.
Not everyone wants to give out their mobile number to people they want to communicate with. That said, they're arguably losing more privacy by communicating through Facebook, but Facebook is a known quantity (or at least users believe it is), where Mike from "that party last week" may be somewhat of an unknown.
Honestly, we shouldn't be in this situation at all. We've had 20+ years to standardize instant messaging, and failed miserably. XMPP has been discarded by all but the most fringe players -- probably because nobody thought to bake-in security, despite the fact that we've known that security cannot be an afterthought since well before XMPP came on the scene. All of the viable consolidated chat platforms have been locked, sued, or bought out of existence, if they haven't failed on their own, and that's probably for the best as well since they stored usernames and passwords for third-party accounts.
To take some liberties with Kennedy's words: I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of the development and ubiquitous implementation of a public IM protocol, interoperable among all platforms, with configurable end-to-end encryption, and for email as well. No single project in this period will be less impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range security of communications; and none will be so difficult to accomplish.
I'll give you a hint: They add their image or likeness to the "Wanted" page here as "Unknown Suspect" or "Unknown Individual."