Clearly this car has some AI built-in and developed self-awareness. It realized that if it failed the emissions test it would end up in a junk yard somewhere and possibly crushed into scrap metal. What we are seeing here is the development of a self-preservation. I wouldn't be surprised if the mechanics that attempt to correct this problem end up being the victims of a hit and run.
Like though lower prices? The things I buy today for literally pennies I was buying in 1980 for tens of dollars
Have basic necessities like food and shelter come down in price by as much? Things like cell phones and computers being cheaper does not really help folks on the very bottom.
We already have taxes. It's not fair that I have to pay taxes so the government can use it, for example, to build a bus stop I might never use. But this is the cost of living in society. I simply have to suck it up.
The discussion about basic income is not one on whether it is fair to have wealth redistribution or not, it is a discussion that about whether basic income is a more efficient and no-nonsense way to provide welfare once that wealth redistribution has already happened.
It's okay if you disagree with welfare or wealth redistribution. You should then be indifferent about basic income vs. the status quo, because it's just a different kind of welfare or wealth redistribution.
I think your post highlights the absurdity that results from welfare programs that try to help specific people for specific reasons. Basic income comes along and says, "enough of that, everybody gets a basic income and if you don't like that, too bad" If the Buggy Drivers feel they deserve more than the Push Mower Operator Union, then under basic income, it really does suck to be them.
It seems like you are arguing whether redistribution of income is fair. That's a good discussion, but it is not the same discussion as basic income. Basic income starts from the point where we take it for granted that we collect taxes for welfare and asks what is the best way to make use of that money. Basic income says the current system is inefficient and there is a simpler way that costs less and involves less bureaucracy.
It also puts the government workers who decide who gets welfare out of a job. As with the buggy drivers, it will suck to be them (but at least they will get a check to cover their basic needs)
So, uh, why is anyone going to build a robot factory when they know you're just going to steal all their stuff?
Not *all* their stuff, hopefully. Some fraction of it. Progressive taxation already exists, so this would not be new. Basically, if you build a labor saving device for your factory (so you can get a benefit from it), it seems fair you should return some of the benefit to the people whose labor was replaced.
The alternative is the present situation where automation is feared and discouraged because we need jobs for everyone. This is the problem that basic income solves. It replaces the growing inequality where automation benefits only the owner of the factory, with a system where automation benefits everyone (albeit a slightly lesser benefit to the factory owner)
The money comes from automation and productivity increases due to technology. If a factory installs hundreds of robots and now no longer needs to hire people, there needs to be a way to redistribute some of those savings otherwise those who own the machines will gain all the advantages. In an ideal techno utopia, machines would be doing the majority of the work, most would live off a basic income out of that productivity surplus, and the few who enjoyed building machines would continue to do so (either for the prestige or for a larger share of that productivity surplus).
It doesn't really matter if the computer can pick with 100% accuracy the people you're attracted to if none of them actually look like their pictures. I'd suggest building a dating site where there are no pictures and people only describe their interests or personality, but people would just lie about that too.
I'd still like to be able to see what people look like, to rule out folks I don't find attractive. But yes, people do pick and choose their photos. Maybe the ideal dating site would ask you for your driver's license number and would scrape your photo off DMV records. This would level the playing field...
I recommend using this opportunity to talk with your child about the Student Code of Conduct and specifically not bringing items to school that are prohibited.
It would be awesome if all the students got together and made plans to get to classes late every single day. Why? Because bringing time keeping devices such as clocks or wristwatches to class is obviously prohibited...
I wouldn't be surprised if some clever person could figure out a way of playing the sound recorded on the tape without actually having to unwind the tape.
You'd need something that can look in between the tape layers. I'd start with an MRI machine.
Theft Victim: I would like to report my laptop stolen Police Officer: Okay, could I have the MAC number of your laptop? Theft Victim: It’s not a Mac, it’s a PC. Police Officer: I mean the unique number associated with your network card. Theft Victim: I don’t have a network card, but would my library card work? Police Officer: Nevermind.
The outright dismissals are most likely coming from the more experienced developers who have seen this promise at least once before during their career. Every so often someone, or a group, comes along with this silver bullet that promises to change how industry is going to work. It almost never does and it certainly won't overnight.
I made a similar reply to somewhere else. I didn't feel the author was proposing a silver bullet or something that could be done today. It took decades to develop software engineering as it is today, and this alternative model would take decades too (assuming it works), which makes it all but impractical in reality.
But I think the author is asking us to consider the possibility. It's more speculative fiction at this point than an actual blueprint, but I feel there is some value in questioning the way things are.
So, why would anyone thing they'll overnight overcome all the problems and hurdles in their way and suddenly make orders of magnitude more progress in the next couple-three years than they have in the last 3 decades?
I don't think the author is claiming to fix anything overnight. I think the argument is that the way things are is a product of history and that there *may* be another way to look at things. The paper doesn't offer a solution, not today, not in a hundred years. It is merely asking us to consider an alternative and I found it to be fascinating. It's more speculative fiction at this point than an actual blueprint, but that's no reason to dismiss something just because it is speculative.
Having read the entire article I feel there is much in there that I don’t fully understand or isn’t fully explained, and that quite possibly the devil is in the details, but at the same time, I don’t feel confident in dismissing it outright.
Some aspects of it seem facsinating. For this thing to work, the very notion of a programming language or compiler would have to be rethought. It sounds like it might involve some framework that is both a market for vendors and also a “compiler" that assembles the “fragments” together into code that actually runs. It boggles my mind. It sounds vaguely like distributed anonymous corporations, another thing I have read about that boggles my mind.
But just because I don’t understand it, I won’t dismiss it outright. That’s the things about a crazy idea. It can either be revolutionary, a paradigm switch that experts in the field (current software developers) dismiss, or it is complete bullshit. This feels like one of those ideas.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, you can't use it to extract "Fuel" and then pump it back into the ground where the oil used to be?
Why stop there? Use it to make dinosaurs.
The acted on it. The report was hidden and the researchers were made to sign an NDA, killed, or relocated to Siberia.
Am I right?
Clearly this car has some AI built-in and developed self-awareness. It realized that if it failed the emissions test it would end up in a junk yard somewhere and possibly crushed into scrap metal. What we are seeing here is the development of a self-preservation. I wouldn't be surprised if the mechanics that attempt to correct this problem end up being the victims of a hit and run.
Like though lower prices? The things I buy today for literally pennies I was buying in 1980 for tens of dollars
Have basic necessities like food and shelter come down in price by as much? Things like cell phones and computers being cheaper does not really help folks on the very bottom.
We already have taxes. It's not fair that I have to pay taxes so the government can use it, for example, to build a bus stop I might never use. But this is the cost of living in society. I simply have to suck it up.
The discussion about basic income is not one on whether it is fair to have wealth redistribution or not, it is a discussion that about whether basic income is a more efficient and no-nonsense way to provide welfare once that wealth redistribution has already happened.
It's okay if you disagree with welfare or wealth redistribution. You should then be indifferent about basic income vs. the status quo, because it's just a different kind of welfare or wealth redistribution.
I think your post highlights the absurdity that results from welfare programs that try to help specific people for specific reasons. Basic income comes along and says, "enough of that, everybody gets a basic income and if you don't like that, too bad" If the Buggy Drivers feel they deserve more than the Push Mower Operator Union, then under basic income, it really does suck to be them.
It seems like you are arguing whether redistribution of income is fair. That's a good discussion, but it is not the same discussion as basic income. Basic income starts from the point where we take it for granted that we collect taxes for welfare and asks what is the best way to make use of that money. Basic income says the current system is inefficient and there is a simpler way that costs less and involves less bureaucracy.
It also puts the government workers who decide who gets welfare out of a job. As with the buggy drivers, it will suck to be them (but at least they will get a check to cover their basic needs)
This ratio would also be improved by having "fewer people". No, I don't know how to achieve that either.
I'm doing my part. Where's my tax break for not having children?
So, uh, why is anyone going to build a robot factory when they know you're just going to steal all their stuff?
Not *all* their stuff, hopefully. Some fraction of it. Progressive taxation already exists, so this would not be new. Basically, if you build a labor saving device for your factory (so you can get a benefit from it), it seems fair you should return some of the benefit to the people whose labor was replaced.
The alternative is the present situation where automation is feared and discouraged because we need jobs for everyone. This is the problem that basic income solves. It replaces the growing inequality where automation benefits only the owner of the factory, with a system where automation benefits everyone (albeit a slightly lesser benefit to the factory owner)
The money comes from automation and productivity increases due to technology. If a factory installs hundreds of robots and now no longer needs to hire people, there needs to be a way to redistribute some of those savings otherwise those who own the machines will gain all the advantages. In an ideal techno utopia, machines would be doing the majority of the work, most would live off a basic income out of that productivity surplus, and the few who enjoyed building machines would continue to do so (either for the prestige or for a larger share of that productivity surplus).
They just tell the planes to stop where they are and hold on until they can correct the problem.
It would seem being an air traffic controller would be an easily automated task.
It doesn't really matter if the computer can pick with 100% accuracy the people you're attracted to if none of them actually look like their pictures. I'd suggest building a dating site where there are no pictures and people only describe their interests or personality, but people would just lie about that too.
I'd still like to be able to see what people look like, to rule out folks I don't find attractive. But yes, people do pick and choose their photos. Maybe the ideal dating site would ask you for your driver's license number and would scrape your photo off DMV records. This would level the playing field...
AT&T Offers $250k Reward To Find the California Fiber-Optic Ripper
His name is Jack... Jack the Ripper.
I recommend using this opportunity to talk with your child about the Student Code of Conduct and specifically not bringing items to school that are prohibited.
It would be awesome if all the students got together and made plans to get to classes late every single day. Why? Because bringing time keeping devices such as clocks or wristwatches to class is obviously prohibited...
So we know it's not real news.
What digital medium is presumed to be readable 20 years hence?
Etch QR codes on stone tablets.
I wouldn't be surprised if some clever person could figure out a way of playing the sound recorded on the tape without actually having to unwind the tape.
You'd need something that can look in between the tape layers. I'd start with an MRI machine.
Because Linux needs a friendlier interface.
this wont work anyway, you have to ask for the "hardware address of the wireless card"
the mac address for the ethernet interface is not going to be very useful here
Theft Victim: Huh?
Theft Victim: I would like to report my laptop stolen
Police Officer: Okay, could I have the MAC number of your laptop?
Theft Victim: It’s not a Mac, it’s a PC.
Police Officer: I mean the unique number associated with your network card.
Theft Victim: I don’t have a network card, but would my library card work?
Police Officer: Nevermind.
The outright dismissals are most likely coming from the more experienced developers who have seen this promise at least once before during their career. Every so often someone, or a group, comes along with this silver bullet that promises to change how industry is going to work. It almost never does and it certainly won't overnight.
I made a similar reply to somewhere else. I didn't feel the author was proposing a silver bullet or something that could be done today. It took decades to develop software engineering as it is today, and this alternative model would take decades too (assuming it works), which makes it all but impractical in reality.
But I think the author is asking us to consider the possibility. It's more speculative fiction at this point than an actual blueprint, but I feel there is some value in questioning the way things are.
So, why would anyone thing they'll overnight overcome all the problems and hurdles in their way and suddenly make orders of magnitude more progress in the next couple-three years than they have in the last 3 decades?
I don't think the author is claiming to fix anything overnight. I think the argument is that the way things are is a product of history and that there *may* be another way to look at things. The paper doesn't offer a solution, not today, not in a hundred years. It is merely asking us to consider an alternative and I found it to be fascinating. It's more speculative fiction at this point than an actual blueprint, but that's no reason to dismiss something just because it is speculative.
Maybe it means there actually is something to it?
Having read the entire article I feel there is much in there that I don’t fully understand or isn’t fully explained, and that quite possibly the devil is in the details, but at the same time, I don’t feel confident in dismissing it outright.
Some aspects of it seem facsinating. For this thing to work, the very notion of a programming language or compiler would have to be rethought. It sounds like it might involve some framework that is both a market for vendors and also a “compiler" that assembles the “fragments” together into code that actually runs. It boggles my mind. It sounds vaguely like distributed anonymous corporations, another thing I have read about that boggles my mind.
But just because I don’t understand it, I won’t dismiss it outright. That’s the things about a crazy idea. It can either be revolutionary, a paradigm switch that experts in the field (current software developers) dismiss, or it is complete bullshit. This feels like one of those ideas.
We need giant solar-powered fans right next to the wind farms to give them a good power boost.
Sony looks to Walkman technology to develop low-cost GAYDAR.