Oh, don't worry, it's coming. Once all of us not in the top.1% have died of starvation due to no longer being able to work for a living, the rest will have that paradise.
where does this pseudoreligious belief, in defiance of all economic history and simple logic and reason come from that an unregulated marketplace is somehow more fair?
From the loads and loads of money spent on advancing this idea by the very people it would benefit?
There is a very large propaganda network whose purpose is to push the idea that letting the very rich do whatever they want will somehow make things better for everyone, and it has been set up over the course of decades. From think tanks, to cable television networks, to buying off professor positions to push right-wing economic theory, and more stuff that I can't think of at the moment (let alone more I don't know about at all), tons of cash has been spent to make this idea seem far less insane than it actually is.
This is the big nightmare scenario of AI (and really, they don't even need technology that advanced). If there's no need for employees, what's to stop the people who control the machines (ie, the very rich) from simply taking what they want, including land, leaving the rest of us without anything we need to survive?
Maybe if we're lucky they'll keep us on reservations and not just send robot armies to slaughter us outright.
Yes, but China has shown that it is quite willing to make a deal and break it, stealing whatever they can from companies that move there and giving it to their local competitors. That changes the dynamics a bit.
The Google brand is worth something to both Google and its users. I think any Google-like operation "in the hands fo the Chinese" would struggle to build that kind of trust with its users. How comfortable would people be sending private emails to someone@china-run-google-clone.cn or watching videos on china-is-watching-you-youtube.cn?
The Chinese government can certainly have a hand in making their alternative look better to the Chinese citizenry, or at least make Google look much worse. What if all searches on Google got absurdly slow due to an artificial delay introduced by the Great Firewall? Or had a lot of its hits stripped out to the point where it's almost useless?
And those are just the two possibilities that I thought of off the top of my head.
Women know what they want - a stable partner to help look after their kids.
Actually women want two things - a stable partner to protect and provide for her and her kids, and the best genetic material to make those kids. These two things do not necessarily have to come from the same man.
I'm sure that that's what Facebook is doing, but this move doesn't really help with that. If they want to sell your information, wouldn't it make more sense to offer a service that allows you to see any profile regardless of privacy settings (especially if you don't make knowledge of this service widely available to the general public)? Allowing anyone to see more information about everyone else doesn't exactly advance this goal.
Quite true. The university system rewards publications, not teaching. It's amusing that, to teach first grade, you have to take several years of classes and a couple of student teaching-assignments to get a certificate, but to teach college, you need to have only a good background in research.
To teach in community college (part-time at the college where I work, at least) you don't need a PhD. You don't even need a Masters degree - just 18 hours of graduate level credit in the subject to be taught. You don't have to have ever taught before, and they don't give you any training before shoving you into the class with a textbook and a pat on the back.
Why are we still doing business with men who would make Victor Frankenstein blanch?
Um... I've read Frankenstein, and I don't remember the good doctor being a murderer.
As to your question, we do business with them for two reasons - first, we owe them so much money that they could ruin our economy by deciding to dump their treasury bills on the market, and second, many powerful people in the US benefit from our trade with them.
You really want healthcare reform? How about looking at malpractice cases and torte reform? Protection from malpractice suits costs tons in redundant tests. Malpractice insurance makes up about a third of healthcare costs in the US. It would be a lot more cost effective to treat our sick if our doctors didn't have to spend so much time and money protecting themselves from our recovered.
We instituted a cap on damages in malpractice cases in Texas. Malpractice insurance has not gone down in price.
Slashdot Mirror
Because then they wouldn't have control over the workers.
I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!
That's a chemical substance, not expression. It does not run afoul of the first amendment.
The difference is that this attempts to tax media with a certain type of content (violent) differently.
The Bill of Rights was only proposed six years after the end of the Revolutionary War. Who killed or died for it specifically?
Little Shop of Horrors teaches us that going to a dentist who loves being a dentist isn't necessarily a good thing...
I don't think most of what the CIA does would qualify as "honest". They're spies, aka liars, thieves and criminals.
Oh, don't worry, it's coming. Once all of us not in the top .1% have died of starvation due to no longer being able to work for a living, the rest will have that paradise.
From the loads and loads of money spent on advancing this idea by the very people it would benefit?
There is a very large propaganda network whose purpose is to push the idea that letting the very rich do whatever they want will somehow make things better for everyone, and it has been set up over the course of decades. From think tanks, to cable television networks, to buying off professor positions to push right-wing economic theory, and more stuff that I can't think of at the moment (let alone more I don't know about at all), tons of cash has been spent to make this idea seem far less insane than it actually is.
This is the big nightmare scenario of AI (and really, they don't even need technology that advanced). If there's no need for employees, what's to stop the people who control the machines (ie, the very rich) from simply taking what they want, including land, leaving the rest of us without anything we need to survive?
Maybe if we're lucky they'll keep us on reservations and not just send robot armies to slaughter us outright.
A police officer not only encouraging crime, but encouraging BIG crime. Fantastic.
They infiltrated the IRS and waged a campaign of terror against them until they gave them their tax-free status.
I seriously doubt the question would even make it to him - I'm sure he has people screening them.
Because the Chinese government builds a dam that floods their lands, and forcibly relocates them?
Whereas now the winner is the candidate backed by the organization with the most money. I'm not sure how this is better.
Yes, but China has shown that it is quite willing to make a deal and break it, stealing whatever they can from companies that move there and giving it to their local competitors. That changes the dynamics a bit.
The Chinese government can certainly have a hand in making their alternative look better to the Chinese citizenry, or at least make Google look much worse. What if all searches on Google got absurdly slow due to an artificial delay introduced by the Great Firewall? Or had a lot of its hits stripped out to the point where it's almost useless?
And those are just the two possibilities that I thought of off the top of my head.
Well, there are other ways, but most of them are illegal.
Actually women want two things - a stable partner to protect and provide for her and her kids, and the best genetic material to make those kids. These two things do not necessarily have to come from the same man.
I'm sure that that's what Facebook is doing, but this move doesn't really help with that. If they want to sell your information, wouldn't it make more sense to offer a service that allows you to see any profile regardless of privacy settings (especially if you don't make knowledge of this service widely available to the general public)? Allowing anyone to see more information about everyone else doesn't exactly advance this goal.
More like Groucho and Harpo.
To teach in community college (part-time at the college where I work, at least) you don't need a PhD. You don't even need a Masters degree - just 18 hours of graduate level credit in the subject to be taught. You don't have to have ever taught before, and they don't give you any training before shoving you into the class with a textbook and a pat on the back.
[Citation needed]
Um... I've read Frankenstein, and I don't remember the good doctor being a murderer.
As to your question, we do business with them for two reasons - first, we owe them so much money that they could ruin our economy by deciding to dump their treasury bills on the market, and second, many powerful people in the US benefit from our trade with them.
We instituted a cap on damages in malpractice cases in Texas. Malpractice insurance has not gone down in price.