Especially the part about preparation, why should the company give you time to prepare an interview? If I were the company, I want to see the real you, not you with a month of preparation.
Learn to control the weather, if it's broken, then fix it. I fully agree that people's behavior will not change, it's a lost cause, which is why we should start R&D on geoengineering as early as possible.
I think it would depend on the definition of "good", it's certainly true that animals may have some advantages over the current version of robotic mule, but there're other areas that the robots are already better (can lift more weights, can provide electricity, no need for training and handling), it all depends on what you're trying to accomplish. I think someone above explained it pretty well why robots may be a better fit for military organization than animals.
BTW, I don't have much experience in horses, but I heard they're pretty costly to maintain, which is why only the rich can afford them.
Once we get off the planet we can decide to adopt economic systems predicated on the infinite availability of natural resources. Until then we should work with what is available to us, which is decidedly finite.
Good plan, except it doesn't work, without growth there's no new technology, without new technology we'll never get off the planet. It is already hard enough to get everyone fed with our current level of technology, which is based on oil that will run out in the next few decades, if we stop the growth now we'll be facing famine and war on a global scale.
The other areas of growth you mention all ultimately rest on natural resources, as they are the absolutely essential bedrock foundation of any economic system.
Yes, there is a base level consumption of natural resources and energy, but we can grow the economy without increasing this consumption level, and we can even shrink it by increasing efficiency.
Sure, you can invent ways to develop them more efficiently or extract them from previously-inaccessible areas or do build new things with them, but there's a limit.
Yes, there is always a limit, what we should do is to get our technology level high enough so that before hitting the limit, it will become irrelevant, and this requires growth.
How well do you think a culture would fare with an economy based entirely on everyone trying to entertain each other? (Probably a lot like Los Angeles! Heyo!)
Not sure, but I wouldn't worry about it, there're a lot more inventions we could do before we're left with entertainment only.
It's not a Good Thing(tm) because the one country who can abuse the whole world actually uses this power to deter the countries abusing their own citizens. Viewed by a citizen being abused in rogue countries, the superpower is not the bully, it's their friend because it's the enemy of their enemy.
We live in a universe which is so big it might as well be infinite, even the solar system is big enough that we won't be using it up for thousands of years. Also growth doesn't have to come from consuming natural resources, it could come from inventions, intellectual property, entertainment.
Growth is not the issue, lack of imagination is.
If the reason it can be done in the US is automation there's very little difference in terms of employment -- The capital holders get to keep more of their capital, some Asians get fired, and very few Americans get hired.Sure the GDP will rise but that won't make the slightest difference for the unemployed.
Won't make a difference for the unemployed who is only qualified for line workers, but would make a big difference for engineering level jobs, it would also help to keep R&D positions in the US which is very important if the US wants to remain a superpower.
Robots are replacing workers everywhere and we need a new economy to deal with the situation.
Yes we do, but let's get the robotic factory working first, then worried about how to distribute the spoils.
Slashdot Mirror
Especially the part about preparation, why should the company give you time to prepare an interview? If I were the company, I want to see the real you, not you with a month of preparation.
Learn to control the weather, if it's broken, then fix it. I fully agree that people's behavior will not change, it's a lost cause, which is why we should start R&D on geoengineering as early as possible.
I think it would depend on the definition of "good", it's certainly true that animals may have some advantages over the current version of robotic mule, but there're other areas that the robots are already better (can lift more weights, can provide electricity, no need for training and handling), it all depends on what you're trying to accomplish. I think someone above explained it pretty well why robots may be a better fit for military organization than animals. BTW, I don't have much experience in horses, but I heard they're pretty costly to maintain, which is why only the rich can afford them.
so that I can mod you up. Well said.
It takes 11 to 14 months, the war would be over by then.
mechanised vehicles are being improved all the time, you can laugh at Big Dog, but it's just a prototype, it will get better very fast.
Once we get off the planet we can decide to adopt economic systems predicated on the infinite availability of natural resources. Until then we should work with what is available to us, which is decidedly finite.
Good plan, except it doesn't work, without growth there's no new technology, without new technology we'll never get off the planet. It is already hard enough to get everyone fed with our current level of technology, which is based on oil that will run out in the next few decades, if we stop the growth now we'll be facing famine and war on a global scale.
The other areas of growth you mention all ultimately rest on natural resources, as they are the absolutely essential bedrock foundation of any economic system.
Yes, there is a base level consumption of natural resources and energy, but we can grow the economy without increasing this consumption level, and we can even shrink it by increasing efficiency.
Sure, you can invent ways to develop them more efficiently or extract them from previously-inaccessible areas or do build new things with them, but there's a limit.
Yes, there is always a limit, what we should do is to get our technology level high enough so that before hitting the limit, it will become irrelevant, and this requires growth.
How well do you think a culture would fare with an economy based entirely on everyone trying to entertain each other? (Probably a lot like Los Angeles! Heyo!)
Not sure, but I wouldn't worry about it, there're a lot more inventions we could do before we're left with entertainment only.
It's not a Good Thing(tm) because the one country who can abuse the whole world actually uses this power to deter the countries abusing their own citizens. Viewed by a citizen being abused in rogue countries, the superpower is not the bully, it's their friend because it's the enemy of their enemy.
We live in a universe which is so big it might as well be infinite, even the solar system is big enough that we won't be using it up for thousands of years. Also growth doesn't have to come from consuming natural resources, it could come from inventions, intellectual property, entertainment. Growth is not the issue, lack of imagination is.
If the reason it can be done in the US is automation there's very little difference in terms of employment -- The capital holders get to keep more of their capital, some Asians get fired, and very few Americans get hired.Sure the GDP will rise but that won't make the slightest difference for the unemployed.
Won't make a difference for the unemployed who is only qualified for line workers, but would make a big difference for engineering level jobs, it would also help to keep R&D positions in the US which is very important if the US wants to remain a superpower.
Robots are replacing workers everywhere and we need a new economy to deal with the situation.
Yes we do, but let's get the robotic factory working first, then worried about how to distribute the spoils.