Of course the flooding in Louisiana has noting to do with the fact that the southern arch of the Jet Stream has been cycling over Nevada instead of Missouri for the past few weeks.
And why is that?
In no way could this have been caused by cyclic El Niño warming in the Pacific causing an early breakdown of the Polar Vortex,
And what causes that?
enhanced by seasonal Atlantic low-pressure zones, which cause North America to experience increased hydraulic activity overall.
So why is different this year?
Nope, it's due to oceanic surface water expansion.
I'm not saying it has anything to do with Bill Nye or AGW, but all things you mention are clearly different from last year, is there a published model that predicts this behaviour?
What people forget is that the Mississippi used to have flood plains all along its path.
I don't think anyone forgot this at all. Any floodplain in a development plan would've been called out in the geotech report that is mandatory on any development application. The Engineers would've called it out as a risk, the developer would've accepted that risk, and people who bought the land accepted the risk when they signed contracts to buy the property.
It's the same reason people live on fault lines, floodplains, volcanoes etc, they accept the risk for the same reason people fly budget airlines. There is usually a financial benefit to do so (ie a 1 in a 100 year risk of flood is acceptable to save $100k on the price of a property etc).
It is not the government's job to be your babysitter.
The AI on the cars will need to be good enough to figure out what to do in many cases or else allow the passenger to manually maneuver the car.
Why not? I agree AI is not close enough now, but there's not reason why all your decision making processes can't be mimicked given enough technology. All that is required is more detailed data and greater processing power. Humans do not posses some magic ability that is unable to be copied.
Awesome. Unleashing AI and Big Data on the Law. The fireworks are going to be awesome on this one. I give it 10 maybe 20 years before the whole system implodes. Everyone will be sued into oblivion.
Only if nothing changes between then and now, which is never the case.
The end is near prophecies always fail to take into account society's ability to adapt.
I used to have a GSXR1000. It was ridiculously quick, but from memory about 2.8secs, whereas the Tesla is reporting 2.5.
I'd still pick the bike though, lane splitting gives you an advantage no car can compete with. It's a common joke among riders when listening to car people talk about "sports cars". It's like two bums arguing over who stinks the least.
The people in power won't let that happen, they'll start a war if they have to, to prevent it...
Or do you know nothing of history?
So people will stop the robots, but we won't be able to stop the robots? Do you see the error in logic here?
How well did that whole "no one owns the land" think work out for the Native Americans?
Your ideas are silly and history shows you'll lose...
Not land, robots. I don't recall many robots in the colonisation of the 'new world'. I think you are confusing automation with science fiction robot overlords.
You clearly don't know how many dogs and cats are put down every year, and yes, when dogs and cats get sick, a lot of owners DO put them down...
And Society is made of people just like me who don't feel the need to kill others just because they don't have a job. We know this because people don't have jobs now yet aren't being slaughtered by the thousands.
Because those in power won't want you to have one.
Ah the mysterious "people in power". Who are they exactly? And why do you think that you speak on their behalf?
Of course not, because the concept is beyond your understanding, all your replies indicate that you fail to understand the situation.
You'll live in ignorance, and that is ok, most people do.:)
No, the argument doesn't make sense. If it makes sense you can demonstrate with reason. So far your argument amounts to "Robots will take our jobs then kill us." Pretty much the same argument we heard in the industrial revolution by the crackpots who fail to understand how progress works.
No, they didn't, but their numbers were reduced by a lot... How many horses are kept by humans today, vs 116 years ago?
Your dog does, because you provide everything it needs...
If I own the robot factory,
Why would a robot factory need an owner? Taking automation to the extreme level requires no ownership since robots can make themselves.
I suppose I could provide everything you need, but in the process you'll become my pet and I'll own you...
Nope your stuck on this ownership thing again. With full automation, ownership becomes an unnecessary concept since all the basic human needs can be supplied for free.
Also, automation is software and already mostly open source. You have no way of owning anything because the people creating it make it available to everyone. You can try the Microsoft model and try own everything, but the world will move to the Linux model because it's better. And better usually wins.
Hey, maybe this won't be so bad, but keep in mind that your dog also doesn't have any freedom and you can kill him any time you want...
Yeah and most people don't kill their dogs now, so why would you think this will change just because we have smarter robots?
Is the only reason you don't kill the guy at the corner store because he sells you a loaf of bread every week? If he stops selling bread would you go kill him because he now serves no purpose? That is some fucked up logic.
To who? My children, parents and grandparents don't work, They still have value to me.
Why should the people who own the robots give you stuff?
Why wouldn't I own my own robot?
What you fail to notice is that you'll no longer have a purpose... why keep you around?
I didn't fail to notice, the argument doesn't make sense. When horses no longer served a working purpose, they didn't go extinct.
My dog doesn't have a job, are you suggesting I should get rid of it?
I have yet to see a single one that can decrypt SSL. I tried. A lot.
The only way to 'decrypt' is to force your own cert, which must be trusted on the devices (WPAD or manually) before it can actually do it without a browser throwing a fit. Unfortunately, once you have a mobile device enter, they tend to throw all kinds of hissy fits.
This is what we do. The Gateway (Proxy) cert is pushed out to all devices via group policy or MDM which allows TLS interception for inspection.
This works, so I'm wondering why this TFS makes it sound like such a big deal?
Ok I just watched it. As expected he misses the point.
Horses don't want jobs. When machines replaced horses, it means horses now have a much higher quality of life since they still get housed and fed, only now they don't have to slog their guts out to get it.
The video is premised on job losses being bad. But if the reason you lose your job is that the robot is doing everything then where is the problem?
He tries to make the connection to the depression and 25% unemployment equates to bad times. But the depression wasn't just unemployment, it was unemployment and no easy way to get food, shelter and medicine. In robot land, we're all unemployed but we all have easy access to food shelter and medicine. Like horses, this will mean a higher quality of life overall. I can't wait.
Based on what I see first hand, automation will kill a lot of jobs, but it will also require a bunch of new, different types of skills to manage.
Do you think that a billion uneducated people are suddenly going to be robot repair people?
Do you think that we need a 1:1 ratio of people in these new jobs?
Go back and watch the video again, you missed something the first time.
I didn't watch the video because prophets of doom have been around since time began are are generally worthless. No-one can predict the future, where you might see doom, I see potential for massive improvement. Only time will tell who is right.
The assumption that people need jobs seems a little confusing. We only work to make money to buy stuff. If robots do all the work then stuff should be effectively free, since there'll be no cost in making it. So we won't all need jobs.
Yes, but if you watch the video, you'll note that he addresses that point...
You think we've been here before, but we haven't, this time is different...
This isn't replacing some manual labor with mechanical labor, this is replacing our brains... There isn't anything to move to...
Humans moved from mechanical tasks to mental tasks... When the mental tasks get replaced by computers, there isn't anything for humans to do...
I think most people can quite happily not work. Taking automation to it's extreme conclusion, means everything will be cost free, since the robots do everything. If my house, food, medicine and education is free, I can spend my entire life doing things I want to do. My dog lives this life now, and it looks pretty good.
The idea that technology will find new things for everyone to do is insane...
We will need a new economic model...
Didn't we already have this argument in the 18th century?
I'm working on projects that involve heavy automation. Leading edge Devops type stuff that 10 years ago required a whole department of Ops engineers to execute, now being made completely redundant. The number of employed people hasn't changed though. We are now heavily developer focused with teams of PMs, BAs, Architects, co-ordinators and support roles instead of engineers.
Based on what I see first hand, automation will kill a lot of jobs, but it will also require a bunch of new, different types of skills to manage.
The car does the work of 100 horses. 1 mechanic can replace 100 saddle makers, but the employment rate didn't fall along with the horse industry.
Change or die is nothing new.
What are the costs for that offshore wind electricity?
I always wonder how people come up with an appropriate price for things. eg An American growing up under 50c/litre petrol thinks $1/litre is a rip-off, while a European who pays $2/litre might think that is normal price?
How much should petrol really cost?
If you ask yourself how much worse off you would be if there was no petrol, then most people would probably pay $10/litre for the privilege. Because as an energy source, petrol is still way under-priced or the value it gives
I think the same about electricity. 10c/kwh is cheap, 30c/kwh is expensive. But if someone said for 50c/kwh I'll resolve all energy generation issues forever, I'd probably take it. And if the choice was electricity for $1/kwh or nothing, I'll still pay it.
So in summary, existing prices are not a suitable guide for what something is worth, or therefore could/should cost in the future. A lot of people found this out the hard way with real estate.
As a former marine engineer I have doubts. Unless materials science has changed dramatically, things do not thrive in ocean environments. Those materials that last longest tend to be very expensive. Maintenance on land based windmills is expensive and dangerous... out there it will be a serious problem.
And you think this project hired no engineers beforehand and didn't even think about this?
Your argument makes no sense unless you are comparing with the alternatives. ie what are the comparable costs for Coal, Nuclear, Steam, Hydro, Solar etc?
I personally have no idea, but a 17 year pay back sounds awfully good for this type of project.
Sure bring on the competition, it will be a good for Steam. I'd prefer a third party but we all know by now that capitalism devolves to a dual monopoly.
You mean duopoly.
Facebook will be the Microsoft of the online gaming world, and Steam will be the Apple.
Facebook will be the Microsoft of mobile devices, and Steam will be Android.
I just want to point out that Facebook does have a 'real' game studio now with published titles and many more in the pipeline. Further they have John Carmack and Abrash in-house. Love or hate Facebook, they now have to tools to make some extraordinary moves in gaming. We are way beyond Farmville here. This is a big announcement.
Meh, It's Facebook and no-one trusts them. Why would I care?
I sorta feel like these heli-pads would be a point of congestion...? Kinda like every train station and parking lot in every city? I'm not seeing how this avoids congestion.
It doesn't. The whole idea is stupid
The biggest issue in urban transportation is congestion. Cars do not solve that. Automated cars so not solve it. Flying cars do not solve it.
The only solution involves increase packet size from 1 person per vehicle to 100+. That means buses and trains and footpaths (the only options that scale)
The pedestrian/train model has proven to work. It currently moves 80000 people/hour in some places. Until any other model comes close to this, it's not even worth entertaining as an urban transport solution.
More energy , more noise, more regulation, more cost. There's no way it works better than a subway and footpaths. We already have the solution, why don't we just make it cleaner/safer/cheaper and be done with it?
Slashdot Mirror
Of course the flooding in Louisiana has noting to do with the fact that the southern arch of the Jet Stream has been cycling over Nevada instead of Missouri for the past few weeks.
And why is that?
In no way could this have been caused by cyclic El Niño warming in the Pacific causing an early breakdown of the Polar Vortex,
And what causes that?
enhanced by seasonal Atlantic low-pressure zones, which cause North America to experience increased hydraulic activity overall.
So why is different this year?
Nope, it's due to oceanic surface water expansion.
I'm not saying it has anything to do with Bill Nye or AGW, but all things you mention are clearly different from last year, is there a published model that predicts this behaviour?
What people forget is that the Mississippi used to have flood plains all along its path.
I don't think anyone forgot this at all. Any floodplain in a development plan would've been called out in the geotech report that is mandatory on any development application. The Engineers would've called it out as a risk, the developer would've accepted that risk, and people who bought the land accepted the risk when they signed contracts to buy the property.
It's the same reason people live on fault lines, floodplains, volcanoes etc, they accept the risk for the same reason people fly budget airlines. There is usually a financial benefit to do so (ie a 1 in a 100 year risk of flood is acceptable to save $100k on the price of a property etc).
It is not the government's job to be your babysitter.
The AI on the cars will need to be good enough to figure out what to do in many cases or else allow the passenger to manually maneuver the car.
Why not? I agree AI is not close enough now, but there's not reason why all your decision making processes can't be mimicked given enough technology. All that is required is more detailed data and greater processing power. Humans do not posses some magic ability that is unable to be copied.
Awesome. Unleashing AI and Big Data on the Law. The fireworks are going to be awesome on this one. I give it 10 maybe 20 years before the whole system implodes. Everyone will be sued into oblivion.
Only if nothing changes between then and now, which is never the case.
The end is near prophecies always fail to take into account society's ability to adapt.
Some people pay $300 for a pair of jeans or $90 for a T shirt. Alarming yes, but not abnormal.
I used to have a GSXR1000. It was ridiculously quick, but from memory about 2.8secs, whereas the Tesla is reporting 2.5.
I'd still pick the bike though, lane splitting gives you an advantage no car can compete with. It's a common joke among riders when listening to car people talk about "sports cars". It's like two bums arguing over who stinks the least.
The people in power won't let that happen, they'll start a war if they have to, to prevent it...
Or do you know nothing of history?
So people will stop the robots, but we won't be able to stop the robots? Do you see the error in logic here?
How well did that whole "no one owns the land" think work out for the Native Americans?
Your ideas are silly and history shows you'll lose...
Not land, robots. I don't recall many robots in the colonisation of the 'new world'. I think you are confusing automation with science fiction robot overlords.
You clearly don't know how many dogs and cats are put down every year, and yes, when dogs and cats get sick, a lot of owners DO put them down...
But not because they don't have jobs.
To society...
And Society is made of people just like me who don't feel the need to kill others just because they don't have a job. We know this because people don't have jobs now yet aren't being slaughtered by the thousands.
Because those in power won't want you to have one.
Ah the mysterious "people in power". Who are they exactly? And why do you think that you speak on their behalf?
Of course not, because the concept is beyond your understanding, all your replies indicate that you fail to understand the situation.
You'll live in ignorance, and that is ok, most people do. :)
No, the argument doesn't make sense. If it makes sense you can demonstrate with reason. So far your argument amounts to "Robots will take our jobs then kill us." Pretty much the same argument we heard in the industrial revolution by the crackpots who fail to understand how progress works.
No, they didn't, but their numbers were reduced by a lot... How many horses are kept by humans today, vs 116 years ago?
Why would we keep you around?
Robots will take our jobs then kill us. Got it.
Your dog does, because you provide everything it needs...
If I own the robot factory,
Why would a robot factory need an owner? Taking automation to the extreme level requires no ownership since robots can make themselves.
I suppose I could provide everything you need, but in the process you'll become my pet and I'll own you...
Nope your stuck on this ownership thing again. With full automation, ownership becomes an unnecessary concept since all the basic human needs can be supplied for free.
Also, automation is software and already mostly open source. You have no way of owning anything because the people creating it make it available to everyone. You can try the Microsoft model and try own everything, but the world will move to the Linux model because it's better. And better usually wins.
Hey, maybe this won't be so bad, but keep in mind that your dog also doesn't have any freedom and you can kill him any time you want...
Yeah and most people don't kill their dogs now, so why would you think this will change just because we have smarter robots?
Is the only reason you don't kill the guy at the corner store because he sells you a loaf of bread every week? If he stops selling bread would you go kill him because he now serves no purpose? That is some fucked up logic.
The problem is you no longer will serve a purpose, why keep you alive?
My dog doesn't work, should I kill it? What about my grandparents? This argument makes no sense.
You missed the comment about the horse population peaking in 1915 and since then it has been nothing but down.
You miss how many horses were killed when they were no loner needed...
Not killed, just not bred as much. There was no great horse holocaust when machines were invented.
If you don't work, what is your value?
To who? My children, parents and grandparents don't work, They still have value to me.
Why should the people who own the robots give you stuff?
Why wouldn't I own my own robot?
What you fail to notice is that you'll no longer have a purpose... why keep you around?
I didn't fail to notice, the argument doesn't make sense. When horses no longer served a working purpose, they didn't go extinct.
My dog doesn't have a job, are you suggesting I should get rid of it?
I have yet to see a single one that can decrypt SSL. I tried. A lot.
The only way to 'decrypt' is to force your own cert, which must be trusted on the devices (WPAD or manually) before it can actually do it without a browser throwing a fit. Unfortunately, once you have a mobile device enter, they tend to throw all kinds of hissy fits.
This is what we do. The Gateway (Proxy) cert is pushed out to all devices via group policy or MDM which allows TLS interception for inspection.
This works, so I'm wondering why this TFS makes it sound like such a big deal?
Ok I just watched it. As expected he misses the point.
Horses don't want jobs. When machines replaced horses, it means horses now have a much higher quality of life since they still get housed and fed, only now they don't have to slog their guts out to get it.
The video is premised on job losses being bad. But if the reason you lose your job is that the robot is doing everything then where is the problem?
He tries to make the connection to the depression and 25% unemployment equates to bad times. But the depression wasn't just unemployment, it was unemployment and no easy way to get food, shelter and medicine. In robot land, we're all unemployed but we all have easy access to food shelter and medicine. Like horses, this will mean a higher quality of life overall. I can't wait.
Based on what I see first hand, automation will kill a lot of jobs, but it will also require a bunch of new, different types of skills to manage.
Do you think that a billion uneducated people are suddenly going to be robot repair people?
Do you think that we need a 1:1 ratio of people in these new jobs?
Go back and watch the video again, you missed something the first time.
I didn't watch the video because prophets of doom have been around since time began are are generally worthless. No-one can predict the future, where you might see doom, I see potential for massive improvement. Only time will tell who is right.
The assumption that people need jobs seems a little confusing. We only work to make money to buy stuff. If robots do all the work then stuff should be effectively free, since there'll be no cost in making it. So we won't all need jobs.
Yes, but if you watch the video, you'll note that he addresses that point...
You think we've been here before, but we haven't, this time is different...
This isn't replacing some manual labor with mechanical labor, this is replacing our brains... There isn't anything to move to...
Humans moved from mechanical tasks to mental tasks... When the mental tasks get replaced by computers, there isn't anything for humans to do...
I think most people can quite happily not work. Taking automation to it's extreme conclusion, means everything will be cost free, since the robots do everything. If my house, food, medicine and education is free, I can spend my entire life doing things I want to do. My dog lives this life now, and it looks pretty good.
https://youtu.be/7Pq-S557XQU
The idea that technology will find new things for everyone to do is insane...
We will need a new economic model...
Didn't we already have this argument in the 18th century?
I'm working on projects that involve heavy automation. Leading edge Devops type stuff that 10 years ago required a whole department of Ops engineers to execute, now being made completely redundant. The number of employed people hasn't changed though. We are now heavily developer focused with teams of PMs, BAs, Architects, co-ordinators and support roles instead of engineers.
Based on what I see first hand, automation will kill a lot of jobs, but it will also require a bunch of new, different types of skills to manage.
The car does the work of 100 horses. 1 mechanic can replace 100 saddle makers, but the employment rate didn't fall along with the horse industry.
Change or die is nothing new.
What are the costs for that offshore wind electricity?
I always wonder how people come up with an appropriate price for things. eg An American growing up under 50c/litre petrol thinks $1/litre is a rip-off, while a European who pays $2/litre might think that is normal price?
How much should petrol really cost?
If you ask yourself how much worse off you would be if there was no petrol, then most people would probably pay $10/litre for the privilege. Because as an energy source, petrol is still way under-priced or the value it gives
I think the same about electricity. 10c/kwh is cheap, 30c/kwh is expensive. But if someone said for 50c/kwh I'll resolve all energy generation issues forever, I'd probably take it. And if the choice was electricity for $1/kwh or nothing, I'll still pay it.
So in summary, existing prices are not a suitable guide for what something is worth, or therefore could/should cost in the future. A lot of people found this out the hard way with real estate.
As a former marine engineer I have doubts. Unless materials science has changed dramatically, things do not thrive in ocean environments. Those materials that last longest tend to be very expensive. Maintenance on land based windmills is expensive and dangerous ... out there it will be a serious problem.
And you think this project hired no engineers beforehand and didn't even think about this?
Your argument makes no sense unless you are comparing with the alternatives. ie what are the comparable costs for Coal, Nuclear, Steam, Hydro, Solar etc?
I personally have no idea, but a 17 year pay back sounds awfully good for this type of project.
No they haven't
Well so far it's a cited research paper vs your unqualified opinion. So you'll excuse the rest of us if we don't take your word for it.
and if you would stop making horrifically bad arguments, you wouldn't be displaying facts about yourself that are insulting.
Ironic. But keep going and see where that gets you.
But that's the elephant in the room that no one will admit, that the entire agenda is one that's anti-humanity, period.
No, we had this argument already in the 18th century...
Sure bring on the competition, it will be a good for Steam. I'd prefer a third party but we all know by now that capitalism devolves to a dual monopoly.
You mean duopoly.
Facebook will be the Microsoft of the online gaming world, and Steam will be the Apple.
Facebook will be the Microsoft of mobile devices, and Steam will be Android.
I just want to point out that Facebook does have a 'real' game studio now with published titles and many more in the pipeline. Further they have John Carmack and Abrash in-house. Love or hate Facebook, they now have to tools to make some extraordinary moves in gaming. We are way beyond Farmville here. This is a big announcement.
Meh, It's Facebook and no-one trusts them. Why would I care?
I sorta feel like these heli-pads would be a point of congestion ...? Kinda like every train station and parking lot in every city? I'm not seeing how this avoids congestion.
It doesn't. The whole idea is stupid
The biggest issue in urban transportation is congestion. Cars do not solve that. Automated cars so not solve it. Flying cars do not solve it.
The only solution involves increase packet size from 1 person per vehicle to 100+. That means buses and trains and footpaths (the only options that scale)
The pedestrian/train model has proven to work. It currently moves 80000 people/hour in some places. Until any other model comes close to this, it's not even worth entertaining as an urban transport solution.
More energy , more noise, more regulation, more cost. There's no way it works better than a subway and footpaths. We already have the solution, why don't we just make it cleaner/safer/cheaper and be done with it?