People pretend like corporations like Google, Apple, Facebook are more (i.e. moral entities) than what they are -simply a business arrangement between a group of people to maximize the profit on their investment. The problem here is not that Google and Facebook cave in to China, the problem is people assuming that Google and Facebook have any sort of moral underpinning.
About a year ago I bought a new laptop from BestBuy which included a 'Free' Antivirus Software CD which of course I ignored. Was contacted for the next several months asking why "I had not yet installed the free license of xxx antivirus software."
Personally I prefer the Kaspersky Credit Card App to store and retrieve my Credit Card Information, because Kaspersky is an Industry Leader in security applications worldwide, and I know that my payment credentials are safe in their hands.
Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Witches float, people need jobs to have meaning
Those all have something in common - a dogmatic belief system
Even Marx noted that air, water, soil, provide use-value to people, but do not require people's labor to derive that use-value. Now, the goods people want and derive use-value from, thanks to technology, require a decreasing amount of their devoted labor time to produce. Hence, making the things they want require less of their devoted labor time to produce, and granting them more time.
More time to wring their hands and worry about where the jobs will go
Sure this post is absurd, for SJW types once again trying to turn Science (in its purest form, where people work to minimize their own bias to determine what is abstractly true) into something that fits their political dogma.. However, consider this -- this same madness has swept other industries -- is there any sympathy for them, or are they undeserving of abstract thought? Do engineering, programming, architecture, farming, building, etc etc have to sacrifice their pure goals for the political dogma, with only science being above the fray?
Rags like Scientific American and National Geographic have over the past few years lost the reason people loved them - because they were objective, and 'above the fray,' and have instead become political mouthpieces...
In the early twentieth century the Editor of National Geographic declared that his magazine would be 'apolitical' and apart from momentary bias -- but in the last few years that principle has been ditched, due to so many reporter types going through a lengthy indoctrination process that puts politics above truth..
Science must stop being science (the putting aside of bias for the goal of finding truth), and instead _become_ bias, to support the 'true' goal of science...
With all this question authority and the dogma they spout, where will it end? Next thing we know people will be questioning things like whether the Minimum Wage actually helps people...
1) Use https and the only spying is the fact that you visited a site at all
2) the libraries provide those services for free. And many phones currently have broadband as well, and 'the poor' have no problem getting phones
Those lies don't just apply to programmers, but also to mass media reporters:
(There is only one answer): Is it true you want to hurt the poor people by blocking the raising of the minimum wage?
(Numbers are accurate): The economy is doing great, the unemployment rate is only 3%!
(We're in control)...
The Tragedy of the Commons reflects companies externalizing their costs onto the community. If a community simply predicts the potential damage or harm a company can do, and requires a protective financial bond to cover said risk, it would minimize riisks by factoring in a cost to the companies. There are a thousand possible responses to a potential exploit, and for some reason, you feel like protecting the 4 or 5 that ultimately are as harmful as they are good.
If someone wins the lottery you say 'wow good for them! All their needs are met!' But if someone were to work for 1 hour and meet all their needs for a whole week, suddenly this is 'wrong'? Or, conversely, someone works for one hour and their needs are met for a whole week and you say 'they deserve it'? Our goal as people should be to improve our lot, and toss aside ideas that hamper us from improving our lot. This applies to people who get all sanctimonious about 'living wage' (as determined by a bureaucrat in Washington D.C.) as well as someone who idolizes a billionaire...
The federal minimum wage has been raising for 80 years in the U.S. Have there been any effects? The last I looked,, the poor / unskilled have a wonderful life today in the U.S., safe environments, great education, a rosy career future, pleasant stores in their neighborhoods offering fresh food stuffs and the list goes on..
You place some mystical valuation on the concept of 'earn' - does the canopener that opened your can 'earn' a place of respect and veneration in your kitchen? At what point did we assign mystical and quasi religious status to actions that solve our day to day needs?
The same as ever - the human employee you deal with today you have to go around to get to the single manager in the place, and in the robot world there may still be a single human 'manager' running the place.
A flat, smooth metal square someone can stand on. The same metal, shaped with jagged edges, would slice the person to bits. Digital energy pulsed in non-smooth, broken waveforms, creates jagged energy environments. Notice remote charging? This is possible because the particular arrangement and timing of pulses differs from smooth analog waves. The digital wifi differs from simple analog emf in the same way that a smooth metal square differs from a serated knife edge.
Unemployable? Do you think that what people do has to fit into a predetermined set of boxes simply so that the High School guidance counselors know how to orient young minds? Where does your 'must fit in square peg' mentality originate?
Slashdot Mirror
People pretend like corporations like Google, Apple, Facebook are more (i.e. moral entities) than what they are -simply a business arrangement between a group of people to maximize the profit on their investment. The problem here is not that Google and Facebook cave in to China, the problem is people assuming that Google and Facebook have any sort of moral underpinning.
About a year ago I bought a new laptop from BestBuy which included a 'Free' Antivirus Software CD which of course I ignored. Was contacted for the next several months asking why "I had not yet installed the free license of xxx antivirus software."
What about global warming? Trump just pulled America out of the Paris Climate Accords so we may have real problems to worry about.
Personally I prefer the Kaspersky Credit Card App to store and retrieve my Credit Card Information, because Kaspersky is an Industry Leader in security applications worldwide, and I know that my payment credentials are safe in their hands.
Has anyone bothered to ask why there are only 3 major credit bureaus?
Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Witches float, people need jobs to have meaning
Those all have something in common - a dogmatic belief system
Even Marx noted that air, water, soil, provide use-value to people, but do not require people's labor to derive that use-value. Now, the goods people want and derive use-value from, thanks to technology, require a decreasing amount of their devoted labor time to produce. Hence, making the things they want require less of their devoted labor time to produce, and granting them more time.
More time to wring their hands and worry about where the jobs will go
Hold on now you are making sense. I am sure someone with points who wants to keep stupid winning will come along and downvote this...
Bing has better responses to searches than Google
Use Bing
I wonder if his building and selling _electric cars_ might have anything to do with that... Hmm...
Sure this post is absurd, for SJW types once again trying to turn Science (in its purest form, where people work to minimize their own bias to determine what is abstractly true) into something that fits their political dogma.. However, consider this -- this same madness has swept other industries -- is there any sympathy for them, or are they undeserving of abstract thought? Do engineering, programming, architecture, farming, building, etc etc have to sacrifice their pure goals for the political dogma, with only science being above the fray?
Rags like Scientific American and National Geographic have over the past few years lost the reason people loved them - because they were objective, and 'above the fray,' and have instead become political mouthpieces... In the early twentieth century the Editor of National Geographic declared that his magazine would be 'apolitical' and apart from momentary bias -- but in the last few years that principle has been ditched, due to so many reporter types going through a lengthy indoctrination process that puts politics above truth..
Science must stop being science (the putting aside of bias for the goal of finding truth), and instead _become_ bias, to support the 'true' goal of science...
With all this question authority and the dogma they spout, where will it end? Next thing we know people will be questioning things like whether the Minimum Wage actually helps people...
1) Use https and the only spying is the fact that you visited a site at all 2) the libraries provide those services for free. And many phones currently have broadband as well, and 'the poor' have no problem getting phones
Would have been much better if she said "PHP truly is the language of the future." What's wrong with her?
this... what could possibly go wrong?
Those lies don't just apply to programmers, but also to mass media reporters:
(There is only one answer): Is it true you want to hurt the poor people by blocking the raising of the minimum wage?
(Numbers are accurate): The economy is doing great, the unemployment rate is only 3%!
(We're in control)...
The Tragedy of the Commons reflects companies externalizing their costs onto the community. If a community simply predicts the potential damage or harm a company can do, and requires a protective financial bond to cover said risk, it would minimize riisks by factoring in a cost to the companies. There are a thousand possible responses to a potential exploit, and for some reason, you feel like protecting the 4 or 5 that ultimately are as harmful as they are good.
If someone wins the lottery you say 'wow good for them! All their needs are met!' But if someone were to work for 1 hour and meet all their needs for a whole week, suddenly this is 'wrong'? Or, conversely, someone works for one hour and their needs are met for a whole week and you say 'they deserve it'? Our goal as people should be to improve our lot, and toss aside ideas that hamper us from improving our lot. This applies to people who get all sanctimonious about 'living wage' (as determined by a bureaucrat in Washington D.C.) as well as someone who idolizes a billionaire...
The federal minimum wage has been raising for 80 years in the U.S. Have there been any effects? The last I looked,, the poor / unskilled have a wonderful life today in the U.S., safe environments, great education, a rosy career future, pleasant stores in their neighborhoods offering fresh food stuffs and the list goes on..
You place some mystical valuation on the concept of 'earn' - does the canopener that opened your can 'earn' a place of respect and veneration in your kitchen? At what point did we assign mystical and quasi religious status to actions that solve our day to day needs?
The same as ever - the human employee you deal with today you have to go around to get to the single manager in the place, and in the robot world there may still be a single human 'manager' running the place.
A flat, smooth metal square someone can stand on. The same metal, shaped with jagged edges, would slice the person to bits. Digital energy pulsed in non-smooth, broken waveforms, creates jagged energy environments. Notice remote charging? This is possible because the particular arrangement and timing of pulses differs from smooth analog waves. The digital wifi differs from simple analog emf in the same way that a smooth metal square differs from a serated knife edge.
Unemployable? Do you think that what people do has to fit into a predetermined set of boxes simply so that the High School guidance counselors know how to orient young minds? Where does your 'must fit in square peg' mentality originate?