Whether you have a single machine or not is incidental to society as a whole: http://www.sharing.org/informa... "In the US, ninety-eight percent of all companies account for only 25 percent of business activity; the remaining two percent account for nearly 75 percent of the remaining activity. The top 500 industrial corporations, which represent only one-tenth of one percent of all US companies, control over two-thirds of the business resources in the US and collect over 70 percent of all US profits."
That's an interesting point, but I think if you broaden the concept a bit you find it's useful. Religion effectively sells hope, and non-religious leaders can also package hope, and you get "religious-*like* beliefs, such as the Nazi/soviet-style cults of personality. e.g. religion / not-religion isn't the be-all end-all distinction. The same psychology behind religion organization has been co-opted by all sorts of movements and leaders regardless of religion since forever. "A better future for your children" is a promise people are willing to slave away for with the same fervor as a religion, perhaps more, since "your place in heaven" is more selfish than that.
I didn't say anything about them or anarchists. I specifically responded to your "Drug companies have the compulsion of reputation" argument. When there are only two choices, industry collusion, and Non-Disclosure Agreements then reputation is basically moot. People don't have a real choice.
If you have a car that is 51% good, then sell it to half the drivers - the worst half. Not everyone needs to switch at the same time, nor are robot cars going to replace drivers purely at random. As robot cars become better, just watch, they'll start making the driver's license test more difficult to encourage worse drivers to go robotic.
Fetters? Coal + Oil get massive tax subsidies, as well coal not having to pay market rates for water (coal power uses a ton of water, they're giant steam engines basically).
It can have both. The government ones will need a backdoor for the government to get in to monitor their employees, they could use the same thing on PCs shipped to citizens.
Governments evolve this way because at the end of the day it's not cost-effective for one group to control every aspect of everyone's life. e.g. if they're projecting their authority to control what you have for breakfast every day then that's a lot of paperwork for something which gains them very little power, in fact it drains the ruling party's resources.
Note that you have there 4030 bank robberies where they accosted *people*, and you "bank-related burglaries and larceny" only adds up to another 61 cases. e.g. bank robberies are far far more effective when there are humans you can force to do it for you.
An AI truck can work 24 hours a day, and doesn't need to take breaks. Plus, they're going to be better at automatic routing and avoiding speed up/slow down scenarios, and fleets of such vehicles can split loads / plan routes better and with less overhead than a fleet of human-driver trucks. So probably divide that truck figure by 3-4.
But you're preventing more accidents that you cause. If an average driver is "50% safe", a "51% safe" AI car would prevent 1% of accidents on balance. You have to add and subtract.
Who' going to need so much gasoline if all the cars become electric robot cars? The whole gasoline-delivery sector would basically vanish. You didn't think that far ahead.
Delivering gasoline in big trucks itself might become less of a thing however. *electric* self-driving cars/trucks, after all. I doubt you're going to see fleets of gasoline powered robot cars.
HMO insurance drug prices are very carefully planned out soothe and ease the flow of money from Medicare into insurance provider's profits, while minimizing the amount of leakage into other part of the health system (such as doctors and hospitals).
When there are only two suppliers, who can talk to each other, and those are the only people in the market selling said thing, they don't need to worry about reputation. Also note that the problem didn't become clearer earlier because of confidentiality agreements. How is reputation meant to regulate a market, if companies can legally apply Non Disclosure Agreements, and take you to court for talking about problems?
Pfizer and Amphastar are probably tied into global supply chains for this, i doubt that there's a magical world of abundant pharmaceutical-grade baking soda just over the border.
note: if you were using enough free electricity to generate any bitcoin these day on home rigs, you'd probably get raided because they thought you were running a hydroponic drug setup, and you'd get sweet FA bitcoin out of it. BitCoin is thoroughly in the corporate sphere now. The above datacenter uses 135 MW of solar and wind power for processing cryptocurrencies. No criminal organization can set up a clandestine operation churning 135MW of power, and that's what you need to compete in the mining market.
Also, nope. Free electricity isn't going to make you a bitcoin miner these days, and you don't have to be a criminal to set up a data center. modern bitcoin operations are data-center sized: https://blog.bitmain.com/en/bi...
Each bitcoin divides into 100,000,000 pieces. It's designed to be granular. in other words each "coin" would have to be worth millions before "rarer" was a meaningful term here.
Yeah, no, that's not how bitcoins work sorry. Each block makes a set amount of bitcoins. If you make more transactions, then you might just mean the next block is generated a little quicker to account for the extra transactions that need to be processed in the same time period. That means more bitcoins made, not less. i.e. spamming fake transactions could cause a tiny bit of inflation.
The other thing that could happen is that block generators start applying transactions fees to your fake transactions, i.e. they take 1/10000 of the value, to cover the costs of processing. That's going to cause value to circulate because of your transaction spamming, and then those guys can spend the fractions of your transaction, which is also inflationary.
Slashdot Mirror
Whether you have a single machine or not is incidental to society as a whole:
http://www.sharing.org/informa...
"In the US, ninety-eight percent of all companies account for only 25 percent of business activity; the remaining two percent account for nearly 75 percent of the remaining activity. The top 500 industrial corporations, which represent only one-tenth of one percent of all US companies, control over two-thirds of the business resources in the US and collect over 70 percent of all US profits."
That's an interesting point, but I think if you broaden the concept a bit you find it's useful. Religion effectively sells hope, and non-religious leaders can also package hope, and you get "religious-*like* beliefs, such as the Nazi/soviet-style cults of personality. e.g. religion / not-religion isn't the be-all end-all distinction. The same psychology behind religion organization has been co-opted by all sorts of movements and leaders regardless of religion since forever. "A better future for your children" is a promise people are willing to slave away for with the same fervor as a religion, perhaps more, since "your place in heaven" is more selfish than that.
*Electric* motorcycles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
A dirt bike doesn't have to be "self driving" to go electric. That's a separate argument.
I didn't say anything about them or anarchists. I specifically responded to your "Drug companies have the compulsion of reputation" argument. When there are only two choices, industry collusion, and Non-Disclosure Agreements then reputation is basically moot. People don't have a real choice.
If you have a car that is 51% good, then sell it to half the drivers - the worst half. Not everyone needs to switch at the same time, nor are robot cars going to replace drivers purely at random. As robot cars become better, just watch, they'll start making the driver's license test more difficult to encourage worse drivers to go robotic.
Fetters? Coal + Oil get massive tax subsidies, as well coal not having to pay market rates for water (coal power uses a ton of water, they're giant steam engines basically).
It can have both. The government ones will need a backdoor for the government to get in to monitor their employees, they could use the same thing on PCs shipped to citizens.
Governments evolve this way because at the end of the day it's not cost-effective for one group to control every aspect of everyone's life. e.g. if they're projecting their authority to control what you have for breakfast every day then that's a lot of paperwork for something which gains them very little power, in fact it drains the ruling party's resources.
Note that you have there 4030 bank robberies where they accosted *people*, and you "bank-related burglaries and larceny" only adds up to another 61 cases. e.g. bank robberies are far far more effective when there are humans you can force to do it for you.
Bank robberies also involve threatening humans as their main tactic, so it's not a good model for ai-truck robberies.
We're not the stable boys, we're the horses.
Back to work doing what exactly? That won't be a good use of big data.
An AI truck can work 24 hours a day, and doesn't need to take breaks. Plus, they're going to be better at automatic routing and avoiding speed up/slow down scenarios, and fleets of such vehicles can split loads / plan routes better and with less overhead than a fleet of human-driver trucks. So probably divide that truck figure by 3-4.
But you're preventing more accidents that you cause. If an average driver is "50% safe", a "51% safe" AI car would prevent 1% of accidents on balance. You have to add and subtract.
Who' going to need so much gasoline if all the cars become electric robot cars? The whole gasoline-delivery sector would basically vanish. You didn't think that far ahead.
Delivering gasoline in big trucks itself might become less of a thing however. *electric* self-driving cars/trucks, after all. I doubt you're going to see fleets of gasoline powered robot cars.
HMO insurance drug prices are very carefully planned out soothe and ease the flow of money from Medicare into insurance provider's profits, while minimizing the amount of leakage into other part of the health system (such as doctors and hospitals).
When there are only two suppliers, who can talk to each other, and those are the only people in the market selling said thing, they don't need to worry about reputation. Also note that the problem didn't become clearer earlier because of confidentiality agreements. How is reputation meant to regulate a market, if companies can legally apply Non Disclosure Agreements, and take you to court for talking about problems?
Pfizer and Amphastar are probably tied into global supply chains for this, i doubt that there's a magical world of abundant pharmaceutical-grade baking soda just over the border.
If they're using it in open heart surgery it needs to be handled and packaged in contamination free environments.
note: if you were using enough free electricity to generate any bitcoin these day on home rigs, you'd probably get raided because they thought you were running a hydroponic drug setup, and you'd get sweet FA bitcoin out of it. BitCoin is thoroughly in the corporate sphere now. The above datacenter uses 135 MW of solar and wind power for processing cryptocurrencies. No criminal organization can set up a clandestine operation churning 135MW of power, and that's what you need to compete in the mining market.
Also, nope. Free electricity isn't going to make you a bitcoin miner these days, and you don't have to be a criminal to set up a data center. modern bitcoin operations are data-center sized:
https://blog.bitmain.com/en/bi...
Each bitcoin divides into 100,000,000 pieces. It's designed to be granular. in other words each "coin" would have to be worth millions before "rarer" was a meaningful term here.
Yeah, no, that's not how bitcoins work sorry. Each block makes a set amount of bitcoins. If you make more transactions, then you might just mean the next block is generated a little quicker to account for the extra transactions that need to be processed in the same time period. That means more bitcoins made, not less. i.e. spamming fake transactions could cause a tiny bit of inflation.
The other thing that could happen is that block generators start applying transactions fees to your fake transactions, i.e. they take 1/10000 of the value, to cover the costs of processing. That's going to cause value to circulate because of your transaction spamming, and then those guys can spend the fractions of your transaction, which is also inflationary.