You wouldn't stand for a walled garden on the iPad either, if you had to pay for it monthly.
I think the rent-is-the-only-option approach and the walled garden approach are fairly orthogonal. The comments about Joe Idiot consumer not caring are wrong too. People hate recurring fees, especially when they've gotten used to not having them.. Just ask any online news source.
It freed up people to do *new* jobs. And it made everyone much richer. So the idea that UBI won't be feasible if everyone's job gets replaced by a machine is ridiculous. As is the idea that people won't find useful and interesting things to do with their time.
The industrial revolution freed many people to do things they were interested in and enjoyed. The if the current wave of automation is equally revolutionary, it will complete that process.
Extending those benefits to the world benefits each of us a great deal. Domestically, making sure people's basic needs are taken care of decreases crime and increases productivity, public safety, public health and scientific, technical and cultural development. Internationally, it also does that, which means you can decrease or eliminate defence spending, most refugee relief, and reap the rewards of a much larger population produce science, technology and culture to share.
The reason UBI is being proposed is because automation looks like it's going to come for an unprecedented number of jobs. It's not really much of a stretch to see how one day it might be virtually all of them. Every person who loses a job to automation is one who can be supported by society without working.
Automation is *more efficient* than having people doing the job. Otherwise you'd use the people.
Nah, everybody loves doing pointless busywork. And we all know people who don't work for some corporation never find anything productive to do, just sit around and watch Oprah all day.
The last of the hard core believers in the protestant work ethic are having their shark jumping moment.
Mathematicians have the useful concept "almost everywhere" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_everywhere) so they can talk about useful properties while remaining rigorous enough for the most determined pedants.
The article describes using real numbers (obviously), complex numbers (also fairly trivial), quaternions AND octonions. That's what the RxCxQxO thing is about.
Sure. People have heart attacks all the time too. That doesn't mean every paramedic has to work 24/7.
People are weird about jobs. As others have pointed out, most people have been indoctrinated with certain beliefs that are not only not true, but are actively counterproductive. Farmers seem to be especially bad. There's a reason farms are among the most unsafe workplaces that exist.
There does appear to be an optimum for most *people*. During WWII Britain discovered that there was no point in pushing people past 40 hours, you get less overall productivity and more mistakes. 40 hours was the optimum for a shortish term push for survival situation. The long term optimum seems to be somewhat less than 40 hours.
Your dairy farmer's operation would probably be more efficient if he hired someone to milk the cows a few days a week so he could take some time off.
Also note that a "multi-millenia track record" doesn't mean much in the face of new technology or supplies. Glass was once extremely highly valued (for jewelry). Once we figured out how to make it nobody valued it very much for it's shiny decorative properties. Likewise, aluminum was far more valuable than gold and used for jewelry, but now that we can make as much as we want nobody wears it much.
I don't recall saying that it would. The operative word in my sentence, which you quoted, is *if*.
However, the fact that the value of gold is extrinsic does mean that it might not respond to supply and demand as might be expected. If some space mining company dropped a megaton of gold on the market the value would drop, but gold's rarity would also be severely reduced. Everyone could walk around wearing as much gold as they wanted. The price might fall more than otherwise expected due to the loss of cachet. Again, diamonds are a good example (except in reverse) where DeBeers specifically limited the supply of gem quality diamonds in order to keep the value very high, while at the same time providing an unrestricted supply of industrial diamond.
Other than shininess, those properties are the "certain industrial uses." But industrial use doesn't drive the price of gold currently. If people got tired of the shiny, then the price would fall to a level that was driven by actual intrinsic value.
Diamond is a good example of this, because you can't just melt down small crappy diamonds to make big nice ones. Industrial diamonds are pretty cheap, while big gem quality diamonds are orders of magnitude more expensive.
The diffraction limit is not due to atmospheric effects. It is a fundamental limit imposed by the aperture of your telescope, which is more or less the size of the primary mirror.
It's currently easier to make a large aperture telescope on the ground, but with the bigger ones it's hard to achieve the diffraction limit because of atmospheric effects. The very best adaptive optics only get you to Hubble territory. JWST is bigger than Hubble.
Interferometry, particularly image-forming interferometry, is probably easier in space. You've got all the space you could possibly want, you can use free space lasers instead of fibre optics, and you can arrange for your telescopes to move easily to produce the image; on the surface you need to put them on train tracks.
Technically, big mirrors are easier in space too, since they don't have to support themselves against gravity. The current problem is you have to get them up there.
Not so odd. Triple redundancy isn't unusual in critical applications, especially ones where you expect pieces might get blown off.
Automated combat systems are also quite common, particularly on naval missile cruisers. Usually you use them in "officer says kill this target" mode, but they have various levels of automation. US carrier escort vessels are designed to deal with thousands of incoming missiles from mass Soviet air attacks. Far too many for the crew to deal with manually.
Nobody can stop the US military from doing it either.
Training AI isn't like building stealth bombers. The technology is all public and, while it does help to have some skill in the field, it's not that difficult to become passably competent.
It's pretty straightforward to make gold from sea water. According to Nature, it currently costs about 5x the market value of the gold. On the other hand, you could likely get a bunch of other valuable things at the same time, so that might bring costs down a bit.
Gold's value is it's rarity. It has a bit of intrinsic value for certain industrial uses, but mostly it's because it's shiny.
Not sure I understand your reasoning. You're saying that because the US mostly private system is very, very expensive, the problem is not that the system is mostly private?
No, the US isn't going to be able to fix it's system with a little bit of legislation. Powerful interests, from physicians to pharma are going to be pissed off. But data from the whole world agrees that some sort of socialized system is both most efficient and most effective.
The plural of anecdote is not data. Proper health outcome studies consistently show that the US is middle of the road in the world, and lags behind the modern social democracies.
The UK and Canadian systems definitely aren't perfect, but they're better, both in outcome and efficiency, than the US system.
Google and Facebook's business is selling people's information. They will sell it to anyone who will pay. Intelligence services are probably great customers because, like Google and Facebook, they have a vested interest in not revealing how much they know, how they found out, or what they're doing with the information.
Slashdot Mirror
It's really too bad they didn't use "A Software Service."
You wouldn't stand for a walled garden on the iPad either, if you had to pay for it monthly.
I think the rent-is-the-only-option approach and the walled garden approach are fairly orthogonal. The comments about Joe Idiot consumer not caring are wrong too. People hate recurring fees, especially when they've gotten used to not having them.. Just ask any online news source.
It freed up people to do *new* jobs. And it made everyone much richer. So the idea that UBI won't be feasible if everyone's job gets replaced by a machine is ridiculous. As is the idea that people won't find useful and interesting things to do with their time.
The industrial revolution freed many people to do things they were interested in and enjoyed. The if the current wave of automation is equally revolutionary, it will complete that process.
Extending those benefits to the world benefits each of us a great deal. Domestically, making sure people's basic needs are taken care of decreases crime and increases productivity, public safety, public health and scientific, technical and cultural development. Internationally, it also does that, which means you can decrease or eliminate defence spending, most refugee relief, and reap the rewards of a much larger population produce science, technology and culture to share.
The reason UBI is being proposed is because automation looks like it's going to come for an unprecedented number of jobs. It's not really much of a stretch to see how one day it might be virtually all of them. Every person who loses a job to automation is one who can be supported by society without working.
Automation is *more efficient* than having people doing the job. Otherwise you'd use the people.
Nah, everybody loves doing pointless busywork. And we all know people who don't work for some corporation never find anything productive to do, just sit around and watch Oprah all day.
The last of the hard core believers in the protestant work ethic are having their shark jumping moment.
Mathematicians have the useful concept "almost everywhere" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_everywhere) so they can talk about useful properties while remaining rigorous enough for the most determined pedants.
The article describes using real numbers (obviously), complex numbers (also fairly trivial), quaternions AND octonions. That's what the RxCxQxO thing is about.
I guess âoeair gappedâ now means âoewe disabled ssh password logins and require a keyâ?
Sure. People have heart attacks all the time too. That doesn't mean every paramedic has to work 24/7.
People are weird about jobs. As others have pointed out, most people have been indoctrinated with certain beliefs that are not only not true, but are actively counterproductive. Farmers seem to be especially bad. There's a reason farms are among the most unsafe workplaces that exist.
There does appear to be an optimum for most *people*. During WWII Britain discovered that there was no point in pushing people past 40 hours, you get less overall productivity and more mistakes. 40 hours was the optimum for a shortish term push for survival situation. The long term optimum seems to be somewhat less than 40 hours.
Your dairy farmer's operation would probably be more efficient if he hired someone to milk the cows a few days a week so he could take some time off.
Spherical cows and cheese... maybe you have some local diary product brand with gold in the name? I don't think we're talking about the same thing.
Also note that a "multi-millenia track record" doesn't mean much in the face of new technology or supplies. Glass was once extremely highly valued (for jewelry). Once we figured out how to make it nobody valued it very much for it's shiny decorative properties. Likewise, aluminum was far more valuable than gold and used for jewelry, but now that we can make as much as we want nobody wears it much.
I don't recall saying that it would. The operative word in my sentence, which you quoted, is *if*.
However, the fact that the value of gold is extrinsic does mean that it might not respond to supply and demand as might be expected. If some space mining company dropped a megaton of gold on the market the value would drop, but gold's rarity would also be severely reduced. Everyone could walk around wearing as much gold as they wanted. The price might fall more than otherwise expected due to the loss of cachet. Again, diamonds are a good example (except in reverse) where DeBeers specifically limited the supply of gem quality diamonds in order to keep the value very high, while at the same time providing an unrestricted supply of industrial diamond.
Nah, jewelry cleaners are pretty inexpensive. I think the owners of expensive jewelry actually enjoy cleaning it from time to time anyway.
Other than shininess, those properties are the "certain industrial uses." But industrial use doesn't drive the price of gold currently. If people got tired of the shiny, then the price would fall to a level that was driven by actual intrinsic value.
Diamond is a good example of this, because you can't just melt down small crappy diamonds to make big nice ones. Industrial diamonds are pretty cheap, while big gem quality diamonds are orders of magnitude more expensive.
The diffraction limit is not due to atmospheric effects. It is a fundamental limit imposed by the aperture of your telescope, which is more or less the size of the primary mirror.
It's currently easier to make a large aperture telescope on the ground, but with the bigger ones it's hard to achieve the diffraction limit because of atmospheric effects. The very best adaptive optics only get you to Hubble territory. JWST is bigger than Hubble.
Interferometry, particularly image-forming interferometry, is probably easier in space. You've got all the space you could possibly want, you can use free space lasers instead of fibre optics, and you can arrange for your telescopes to move easily to produce the image; on the surface you need to put them on train tracks.
Technically, big mirrors are easier in space too, since they don't have to support themselves against gravity. The current problem is you have to get them up there.
Not so odd. Triple redundancy isn't unusual in critical applications, especially ones where you expect pieces might get blown off.
Automated combat systems are also quite common, particularly on naval missile cruisers. Usually you use them in "officer says kill this target" mode, but they have various levels of automation. US carrier escort vessels are designed to deal with thousands of incoming missiles from mass Soviet air attacks. Far too many for the crew to deal with manually.
Nobody can stop the US military from doing it either.
Training AI isn't like building stealth bombers. The technology is all public and, while it does help to have some skill in the field, it's not that difficult to become passably competent.
Quite a few descendants as well.
It's pretty straightforward to make gold from sea water. According to Nature, it currently costs about 5x the market value of the gold. On the other hand, you could likely get a bunch of other valuable things at the same time, so that might bring costs down a bit.
Gold's value is it's rarity. It has a bit of intrinsic value for certain industrial uses, but mostly it's because it's shiny.
Not sure I understand your reasoning. You're saying that because the US mostly private system is very, very expensive, the problem is not that the system is mostly private?
No, the US isn't going to be able to fix it's system with a little bit of legislation. Powerful interests, from physicians to pharma are going to be pissed off. But data from the whole world agrees that some sort of socialized system is both most efficient and most effective.
The plural of anecdote is not data. Proper health outcome studies consistently show that the US is middle of the road in the world, and lags behind the modern social democracies.
The UK and Canadian systems definitely aren't perfect, but they're better, both in outcome and efficiency, than the US system.
Google and Facebook's business is selling people's information. They will sell it to anyone who will pay. Intelligence services are probably great customers because, like Google and Facebook, they have a vested interest in not revealing how much they know, how they found out, or what they're doing with the information.
Good idea. I think someone may have beaten you to it though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...