But if you think about it one day and say "woah, I really need to do something other than smoke pot all day" you won't have any trouble stopping. This is not true for so many other "habit forming" drugs.
This is such a silly argument. I know so many habitual pot smokers that have no problem whatsoever stopping for a few months so they can look for a job. I've never known anyone who has had trouble stopping. The claim that this drug is addictive is is a bold faced lie, and that is clear to anyone who has ever used it, or looked into any of the research about it.
Moreover, when did the idea that the government's job is to protect us from ourselves become commonly accepted? For almost a century they've been peddling this prohibition on the basis that the drug causes crime, and they were protecting us from criminals. No that they can't make that claim anymore they're protecting us from ourselves?! Believe me now, I lied before?! Moreover, the government does not have the authority to ban these plants based on toxic effects! They have no authority to regulate homeopathic and natural remedies whatsoever.
Fuck the government. Fuck the Obama administration. I am sick of these elitist assholes telling me what to do.
both major parties care little about personal liberty
I'd say that are very concerned about it. Just not in a good way.
If I want to repeal the 16th amendment (the income tax)
The income tax was legal before the 16th amendment. But the 16th amendment removes considerations related to direct taxes, which had stymied the federal government when it came to collecting taxes on income derived from rent.
The cost of electricity is already significantly lower than gasoline. The reason we don't all drive electric cars is they are too expensive and don't have sufficient range. If those factors were to change, everyone would switch to electric cars with or without cold fusion.
I love all the cool technical challenges DARPA comes out with, but is recovering shredded doccuments really something we should be helping the government with?
I work with groundwater models, and (at least where I work) we do not consider the models to be predictive. Rather we hope they will give us a better idea of what is happing with a particular site. We combine this with "trend" analysis and real world data to get an idea of what's actually going on with a site. We do not believe we know what's going to happen based on the model, but we hope that the model will tell us what direction things are headed so we can prepare for it.
Really?! Is that your final answer? Apple fanboys are worse than Nazis? Do you think you may be taking it a bit far? I'm looking for something to indicate this is a joke. . .
In all fairness, the iPhone has been more expensive until recently (you can now get one for free with a contract) and they've available on Verizon for less than a year now. Now that they're out of their exclusivity contract, and selling them on the cheap, they should be grabbing a bigger slice.
My roommate just upgraded her 3 year old android phone to a 4S (rather than a newer android phone) after she saw the add with Siri, and read a bunch of review that said it actually works. When she bought the other one, she couldn't get an iPhone because she has a family plan with Verizon. It's actually pretty funny, because just a week ago she was telling me how she wasn't going to be an iSheep and get the iPhone.
They also have a pretty strong "we'll sue you if you copy our ideas" philosophy. They've been pursuing these kind of lawsuits for quite a while, and this is nothing new.
But the problem is that the slide to unlock on that device doesn't actually implement a version of apple's patent.
The performance of the predefined gesture with respect to the unlock image may include moving the unlock image to a predefined location and/or moving the unlock image along a predefined path. The device may also display visual cues of the predefined gesture on the touch screen to remind a user of the gesture.
The n1m presented does not include an unlock image that is moved by the user, while such an image is specified and non-optional in the patent.
In addition, there is a need for sensory feedback to the user regarding progress towards satisfaction of a user input condition that is required for the transition to occur.
The n1m also doesn't appear to provide any feedback to show how close the user has come to actually unlocking the phone. However, the patent does not specify that the feedback needs to be visual, so we can't be sure.
When you're looking at prior art, you can't just look at whether the device is similar, it actually has to infringe on the granted patent. The more specific the patent is, the less likely there is any prior art.
That's not how it works. You can't get rich selling things to people with no money. That's why the banking system is tanking. You will never see the result you're described, because it makes no sense. You may see the whole global economy collapse. ..but that's not my point anyway.
There is more to life than finding a job and working it to get rich. If someone truly enjoys doing something, they will do it without the need to be paid for it. Especially if they can live without doing a job they hate. Many people find meaning in their interactions with others. You may be able to build a robot that can take care of kids, but that wouldn't stop someone who like working with kids from doing it. You may be able to program a robot to play basketball, but that wouldn't stop someone who enjoys basketball from playing. You could program a robot to have sex, but. . . you get the idea. The economy as it stands today is a hypothetical construction that was made to ensure that undesirable jobs still got done. It is in the process of becoming obsolete. It's doesn't have to be a messy transition, but it's shaping up to be one.
There's a lot of stuff for people to do, not just "high-level" jobs. Caring for children and the elderly, for example. In fact, many those high level jobs are still threatened by automation, that's what this article is about.
I couldn't agree with you more. But, that doesn't mean standing in the way of advancing technology.
We need to reconsider our values and priorities on a fundamental level. The thinking that you need a job to survive is rapidly becoming outdated. But there are still a lot of things people should be doing with their time, things like charity work, working with kids, inventing new technology and exploring the universe. People need to learn to do stuff without being motivated by a paycheck. As a society, we all need to grow up and learn not depend on rewards and punishments to motivate us into action.
If the need for a certain job to be done no longer exists, that job becomes meaningless. You're just fooling yourself if you believe otherwise. There is lots of work that is actually meaningful that still can be done. We don't need to be wasting people's time by making them doing jobs that can be automated.
Just because you were a taxi driver doesn't mean that's all you can ever be.
I think I've heard this before. . .
on
The Real Job Threat
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The problem with this absurd argument is that people want stuff, not jobs. The only reason you work a job is so you can buy the things you want/need. And if you don't have to work as much to get them, that's hardly a problem.
You could design it with "lifeboats" that are parachute and airbag equipped. Then you only have to worry about supporting the weight of the passangers. Since they'd just drop out of the bottom, you wouldn't need as much time to launch them as a ship does.
But if student loans were indeed the cause of the high price of college, what makes you think stopping them would make the price go down?
It's reasonable to hypothesize that removing the cause of a problem will remove the problem as well.
Student loans are where schools get most of their money today. This has allowed them to increase attendance but it's also removed cost pressures on universities.
Increased college attendance has not had the positive effect we were hoping it would. It's made matters worse for a lot of people. We can't continue to throw good money after bad on this.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that would be the sensible thing to do. That's not how politics works.
But if you think about it one day and say "woah, I really need to do something other than smoke pot all day" you won't have any trouble stopping. This is not true for so many other "habit forming" drugs.
This is such a silly argument. I know so many habitual pot smokers that have no problem whatsoever stopping for a few months so they can look for a job. I've never known anyone who has had trouble stopping. The claim that this drug is addictive is is a bold faced lie, and that is clear to anyone who has ever used it, or looked into any of the research about it.
Moreover, when did the idea that the government's job is to protect us from ourselves become commonly accepted? For almost a century they've been peddling this prohibition on the basis that the drug causes crime, and they were protecting us from criminals. No that they can't make that claim anymore they're protecting us from ourselves?! Believe me now, I lied before?! Moreover, the government does not have the authority to ban these plants based on toxic effects! They have no authority to regulate homeopathic and natural remedies whatsoever.
Fuck the government. Fuck the Obama administration. I am sick of these elitist assholes telling me what to do.
It's for the children. And by that I mean it's for the purpose of groping and taking naked pictures of the children.
I'd say that are very concerned about it. Just not in a good way.
The income tax was legal before the 16th amendment. But the 16th amendment removes considerations related to direct taxes, which had stymied the federal government when it came to collecting taxes on income derived from rent.
The cost of electricity is already significantly lower than gasoline. The reason we don't all drive electric cars is they are too expensive and don't have sufficient range. If those factors were to change, everyone would switch to electric cars with or without cold fusion.
You can sometimes recover information from incinerated documents as well. I'd reccomend both. Or maybe just not writing it down in the first place.
I love all the cool technical challenges DARPA comes out with, but is recovering shredded doccuments really something we should be helping the government with?
That 767 it just for parties. It's completely different.
I work with groundwater models, and (at least where I work) we do not consider the models to be predictive. Rather we hope they will give us a better idea of what is happing with a particular site. We combine this with "trend" analysis and real world data to get an idea of what's actually going on with a site. We do not believe we know what's going to happen based on the model, but we hope that the model will tell us what direction things are headed so we can prepare for it.
Really?! Is that your final answer? Apple fanboys are worse than Nazis? Do you think you may be taking it a bit far? I'm looking for something to indicate this is a joke. . .
In all fairness, the iPhone has been more expensive until recently (you can now get one for free with a contract) and they've available on Verizon for less than a year now. Now that they're out of their exclusivity contract, and selling them on the cheap, they should be grabbing a bigger slice.
My roommate just upgraded her 3 year old android phone to a 4S (rather than a newer android phone) after she saw the add with Siri, and read a bunch of review that said it actually works. When she bought the other one, she couldn't get an iPhone because she has a family plan with Verizon. It's actually pretty funny, because just a week ago she was telling me how she wasn't going to be an iSheep and get the iPhone.
They also have a pretty strong "we'll sue you if you copy our ideas" philosophy. They've been pursuing these kind of lawsuits for quite a while, and this is nothing new.
But the problem is that the slide to unlock on that device doesn't actually implement a version of apple's patent.
The n1m presented does not include an unlock image that is moved by the user, while such an image is specified and non-optional in the patent.
The n1m also doesn't appear to provide any feedback to show how close the user has come to actually unlocking the phone. However, the patent does not specify that the feedback needs to be visual, so we can't be sure.
When you're looking at prior art, you can't just look at whether the device is similar, it actually has to infringe on the granted patent. The more specific the patent is, the less likely there is any prior art.
If I were to expend my effort to clothe, feed, and house you, would that not constitute charity work. That is exactly what I'm talking about.
That's not how it works. You can't get rich selling things to people with no money. That's why the banking system is tanking. You will never see the result you're described, because it makes no sense. You may see the whole global economy collapse. . .but that's not my point anyway.
There is more to life than finding a job and working it to get rich. If someone truly enjoys doing something, they will do it without the need to be paid for it. Especially if they can live without doing a job they hate. Many people find meaning in their interactions with others. You may be able to build a robot that can take care of kids, but that wouldn't stop someone who like working with kids from doing it. You may be able to program a robot to play basketball, but that wouldn't stop someone who enjoys basketball from playing. You could program a robot to have sex, but. . . you get the idea. The economy as it stands today is a hypothetical construction that was made to ensure that undesirable jobs still got done. It is in the process of becoming obsolete. It's doesn't have to be a messy transition, but it's shaping up to be one.
There's a lot of stuff for people to do, not just "high-level" jobs. Caring for children and the elderly, for example. In fact, many those high level jobs are still threatened by automation, that's what this article is about.
I couldn't agree with you more. But, that doesn't mean standing in the way of advancing technology.
We need to reconsider our values and priorities on a fundamental level. The thinking that you need a job to survive is rapidly becoming outdated. But there are still a lot of things people should be doing with their time, things like charity work, working with kids, inventing new technology and exploring the universe. People need to learn to do stuff without being motivated by a paycheck. As a society, we all need to grow up and learn not depend on rewards and punishments to motivate us into action.
If the need for a certain job to be done no longer exists, that job becomes meaningless. You're just fooling yourself if you believe otherwise. There is lots of work that is actually meaningful that still can be done. We don't need to be wasting people's time by making them doing jobs that can be automated.
Just because you were a taxi driver doesn't mean that's all you can ever be.
The problem with this absurd argument is that people want stuff, not jobs. The only reason you work a job is so you can buy the things you want/need. And if you don't have to work as much to get them, that's hardly a problem.
You could design it with "lifeboats" that are parachute and airbag equipped. Then you only have to worry about supporting the weight of the passangers. Since they'd just drop out of the bottom, you wouldn't need as much time to launch them as a ship does.
Yes, those concerns are not a all obvious. I'm sure you are the first to think of them.
A loan is a subsidy.
It's reasonable to hypothesize that removing the cause of a problem will remove the problem as well.
Student loans are where schools get most of their money today. This has allowed them to increase attendance but it's also removed cost pressures on universities.
Increased college attendance has not had the positive effect we were hoping it would. It's made matters worse for a lot of people. We can't continue to throw good money after bad on this.
No, his solution is to lower the cost of education by ending government subsidies. It's right there in the summary.