The hope is savings, if labor saves and invests its money (especially in the stocks of companies benfitting from the progress) labor can survive and even come out ahead. If ou dad and mom blew their savings however, we have far more competition than they did to achieve the same asset base.
If the labor saves and invests its money, that money is not going towards shoring up demand. Less demand means people get laid off, which causes less demand, which causes layoffs, and so on - in other words, a depression like we have now.
But never let logic get in the way of victim-blaming. Can't let any part of the fault land on the robber barons looting the economy. After all, that might mean bad things happen to undeserving persons - perhaps even to you.
Instead of just another thoughtless blaming of the current economic situation in the developed world on employers, you should ask what are the incentives that cause employers to try to squeeze more of existing labor than to employ more people?
Simple: they're trying to maximize profits. At current productivity levels availability of labor is not the main limiting factor for production, thus unemployment exists; since unemployment exists, the law of supply and demand makes it possible to pay less and demand more from employees, thus the employers do just that.
Something causes prosperity and progress even in the presence of greedy people - figure that out and duplicate the conditions.
Give social security generous enough that not working becomes an okay life strategy. Force employers to actually compete for employees, even for McJobs, and wages will rise and business models only profitable by exploiting desperate people will collapse due to lack of such people. Simultaneously, use toll barriers to protect against offshoring and tax all income generated within the country, no matter where the corporate headquarters are nominally located.
Sure. The problem is, in the absence of an impartial referee everyone can submit to without losing face, things tend to get out of hand. You think someone's been unjust to you? Retaliate! Someone might be planning to attack? Attack them first! Someone's getting dangerously powerful? Take them down while you still can!
Just look at world politics: areas with functioning hegemons, even completely impotent ones like the EU, have issues settled through legal battles, while areas without them, like Africa, have an endless supply of militant groups. The hegemon doesn't necessarily have to be a Leviathan, to produce obedience through fear of themselves, they just need to have general recognition as the legitimate ruler so that anyone willing to defect over any particular issue is put back into line by the others for fear of anarchy.
when you give people the simplified choice of, should this tragedy have happened, or do we prevent it in the future, they will always pick the "lets prevent this in the future option". Because they are not writing the budges, they are not directly taking money out of schools or medical care. They are not deciding exactly what rights to trampled on.
Yes, it's the dumb public who's at fault. Except... for some strange reason the police don't behave this way in, say, Nordic countries, despite them being openly and officially huge-government welfare nanny states straight from Ayn Rand's worst nightmares. So perhaps, just perhaps, the problem behind the police acting like an occupying force is not the public but the police themselves?
Bitcoin's not unregulated. Its regulations are simply enforced by technical rather than legal means. Or are you perhaps confusing currency regulations with regulations against extortion?
Other than greed, I can't understand why they don't just make an agreement with Google or Mozilla - preferably both - to have one of their browsers automatically installed with Windows.
Control. If it's delivered by Microsoft then Microsoft gets the blame when something goes wrong, and rightly so. Also, giving up competition entirely means giving up control over the future of the Net. Finally, having a browser means being able to test net-facing code before implementing it on server.
Tyson shouldn't clarify his statements to appease people who are offended, because it's implying that he "may" be wrong. It's hamstering, and that's not what men do.
Obviously they do, since Tyson did and is a man. Why should he, or anyone for that matter, care what someone else thinks their particular configuration of genitalia obligates them to?
Be a hamster or be macho, but if you're either just to fulfil other people's expectations, you're really nothing but a puppet.
That also reduces the ability of the company to coordinate your purchasing information (though your name and address are probably relatively unique, unless you also use single-use versions of those, like random apartment numbers for your house.)
I smell a business opportunity for an anonymizing postal service! Go to their site to create a fake (but real-looking) address, give that to the shipper, and have the package delivered to your real address.
I think a story like this belongs, because it can bring together knowledgeable people who can speculate on possible technical issues that may have been the cause of a problem...
Not to mention speculate about the worthlessness of those lost.
The cause of the crash was almost certainly being hit by a thunderstorm, rather than a technical issue, seeing how the plane was last heard of when it asked for permission to dodge.
And how exactly is the NSA going to crack into my self-signed certs, with the CA sitting on a box with no connection to the Internet? Short of breaking into the location where the computer is, I'd say with reasonable certainty that the NSA cannot crack the certs that are used for my interoffice VPN.
Malware. If your machines don't get updated, they're vulnerable due to unpatched holes, and if they do get updated, they're vulnerable to malicious code insertion through those updates.
If we do it, people say that no one loses anything if you make a copy, and that sharing has been part of human culture for ages. These people should have nothing to whine about if Sony then goes to do the same thing.
Sony has been one of the advocates for de facto life-ruining punishment for copyright violation. They will almost certainly continue being that in the future too. So why shouldn't they get hoisted by their own petard when it turns out they're not just cruel but also hypocrites? Avenge their victims and dethrone the malefactor.
Of course we can. Reality - including human nature - simply sets the design parameters for those nice things. For example, would it be possible to fit major torrent clients with built-in (non-exit) Tor nodes? That way, torrent traffick would not swamp exit nodes and would actually help hide the kind of traffick Tor was originally designed for.
At least if most of the learning happens at school, kids get mostly the same shot at it.
Those who aren't bullied, at least. Those who are get to spend some more mandatory time in Hell. And longer school days mean more stress and thus more bullies and less teachers willing to do anything about it.
Democrats hate the thought of anyone determining their own fate and Republicans want to prevent anyone from enjoying the same advantages they do.
And once you accept such a premise - that everyone who disagrees with you is acting in bad faith - how could you possibly behave any differently than the NSA did? After all, you are surrounded by Fifth Columns trying to subvert the nation for whatever reason. What else can you do but keep them under surveillance in hopes of catching them in the act?
This is what's really wrong with American political process: treating political opponents as enemies. Democracy works because everyone gets to make their case without having to resort to violence. Democracy is efficient because every viewpoint gets represented and thus considered. But there's also the temptation to simply hurl mud on one's opponents rather than argue one's policies on their merits, and for whatever reason that's the road US has taken. It's a flaw that needs to be corrected.
Both Parties have become useless to the majority and only serve specific, rabidly vocal special interest groups.
So both parties listen to the voters, otherwise being rabidly vocal would have no effect. So rather than complain that they can't read your mind, why don't you learn from these special interest groups and start your own? Because "Party X only listens to me if I speak" is not exactly a damning judgement, at least not on the party.
Well, as they say, the tree of liberty needs to occasionally be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots. It appears that their tree is in need of some watering.
Neither the US nor the UK have tyrants. They have officials who were elected by popular vote. So unless you were planning immolating yourself in front of Buckingham Palace as a protest for your country's policies, the quote is not really appropriate.
Democracies reflect their citizens. You don't have to like that reflection, but if you don't, breaking the mirror only adds more disfigurements from the flying shards.
So what? We already made that choice to do so. Forcing companies to go with automation over employment doesn't make this situation any better.
We decided to not let people starve, and institutionalized that decision in the form of social security. However, setting up said social security in such a way that businesses suffer less costs from paying their employees insufficient wages than they would without social security in place - because automation is not free - creates perverse incentives. It rewards paying employees less and punishes any competitors who pay decent wages. That's a dumb and arguably evil thing to do.
Dashcams stay on the cruiser which is always in a public space. There is no need to redact that video unless you have something to hide.
So, just hypothetically speaking, you would be okay with being followed and every single one of your actions recorded and publicly reported 24/7? Because with modern computer vision and ubiquitous cameras, that question is becoming less hypothetical every day. And that, in turn, is quickly turning the entire society into a giant panopticon.
Look up Finlandization. Hell can take many forms, and none are made better by being forced to smile and pretend everything's okay.
Who's going to employ poor people once you destroy the businesses who employ poor people?
The question is not who employes them, the question is who pays for their living expenses. If companies don't pay a living wage, then that's you and me.
Society is not a suicide pact.
?
These people are paid so little because their labor is worth so little. Making them unemployable doesn't make their labor worth any more than it currently is.
Then it shouldn't really matter if they're employed or not, now should it? After all, if their labor is worth little, then the economy is little affected if it's removed, right?
We will see not only jobs moved to other parts of the world, but the automation as well. Call it "race to the bottom", "exporting the pollution", whatever, but it remains that a growing amount of valuable economic activity has been chased out of the developed world and it's not coming back.
What valuable economic activity would that be? Surely you aren't referring to activities so unprofitable that paying minimum wage for them is a "punishment"?
Manufacture for example. And Walmart and McDonald's do have valid business models and very useful services that depend on low wages. They can achieve that by automation or by paying people what they're worth.
You can't have it both ways. Either these people's labor is valuable, or it is not. If it is, then pay them for it. If it's not, then it doesn't matter whether they're employed or not, because they're poor either way and the economy is by definition unaffected by losing low-value labour; the only ones affected is McDonald's and Wal-Mart who'll have to shell out for automation rather than continue having their profits subsidized by having me pay their workforce. Which one is it?
Says the guy who doesn't know what "begging the question" means...
"Begging the question" has multiple meanings: the literal meaning, similar to "rising the question", and another: "assuming the conclusion" which originated from a particularly bad translation of a latin phrase. You, on the other hand, confused the concept of sharing with its exact opposite, "exclusive use".
Slashdot Mirror
If the labor saves and invests its money, that money is not going towards shoring up demand. Less demand means people get laid off, which causes less demand, which causes layoffs, and so on - in other words, a depression like we have now.
But never let logic get in the way of victim-blaming. Can't let any part of the fault land on the robber barons looting the economy. After all, that might mean bad things happen to undeserving persons - perhaps even to you.
Simple: they're trying to maximize profits. At current productivity levels availability of labor is not the main limiting factor for production, thus unemployment exists; since unemployment exists, the law of supply and demand makes it possible to pay less and demand more from employees, thus the employers do just that.
Give social security generous enough that not working becomes an okay life strategy. Force employers to actually compete for employees, even for McJobs, and wages will rise and business models only profitable by exploiting desperate people will collapse due to lack of such people. Simultaneously, use toll barriers to protect against offshoring and tax all income generated within the country, no matter where the corporate headquarters are nominally located.
Sure. The problem is, in the absence of an impartial referee everyone can submit to without losing face, things tend to get out of hand. You think someone's been unjust to you? Retaliate! Someone might be planning to attack? Attack them first! Someone's getting dangerously powerful? Take them down while you still can!
Just look at world politics: areas with functioning hegemons, even completely impotent ones like the EU, have issues settled through legal battles, while areas without them, like Africa, have an endless supply of militant groups. The hegemon doesn't necessarily have to be a Leviathan, to produce obedience through fear of themselves, they just need to have general recognition as the legitimate ruler so that anyone willing to defect over any particular issue is put back into line by the others for fear of anarchy.
Yes, it's the dumb public who's at fault. Except... for some strange reason the police don't behave this way in, say, Nordic countries, despite them being openly and officially huge-government welfare nanny states straight from Ayn Rand's worst nightmares. So perhaps, just perhaps, the problem behind the police acting like an occupying force is not the public but the police themselves?
According to Wikipedia, a dollar bill weights around 1g. According to Alibaba, a ton of offset printing paper costs around $600 per ton. That means paper costs around 0.06 cents per gram, or put another way, a dollar bill is about 16 times its weight in paper.
Bitcoin's not unregulated. Its regulations are simply enforced by technical rather than legal means. Or are you perhaps confusing currency regulations with regulations against extortion?
When the law is for sale to the highest bidder, technology that lets everyone else get around it is quite valuable indeed.
Control. If it's delivered by Microsoft then Microsoft gets the blame when something goes wrong, and rightly so. Also, giving up competition entirely means giving up control over the future of the Net. Finally, having a browser means being able to test net-facing code before implementing it on server.
Terrorists. There are bound to be a few muslims in an international group like that.
Obviously they do, since Tyson did and is a man. Why should he, or anyone for that matter, care what someone else thinks their particular configuration of genitalia obligates them to?
Be a hamster or be macho, but if you're either just to fulfil other people's expectations, you're really nothing but a puppet.
I smell a business opportunity for an anonymizing postal service! Go to their site to create a fake (but real-looking) address, give that to the shipper, and have the package delivered to your real address.
Not to mention speculate about the worthlessness of those lost.
The cause of the crash was almost certainly being hit by a thunderstorm, rather than a technical issue, seeing how the plane was last heard of when it asked for permission to dodge.
Malware. If your machines don't get updated, they're vulnerable due to unpatched holes, and if they do get updated, they're vulnerable to malicious code insertion through those updates.
Sony has been one of the advocates for de facto life-ruining punishment for copyright violation. They will almost certainly continue being that in the future too. So why shouldn't they get hoisted by their own petard when it turns out they're not just cruel but also hypocrites? Avenge their victims and dethrone the malefactor.
main = putStrLn "RADIO SHACK SUCKS!!!" >> main
Of course we can. Reality - including human nature - simply sets the design parameters for those nice things. For example, would it be possible to fit major torrent clients with built-in (non-exit) Tor nodes? That way, torrent traffick would not swamp exit nodes and would actually help hide the kind of traffick Tor was originally designed for.
Those who aren't bullied, at least. Those who are get to spend some more mandatory time in Hell. And longer school days mean more stress and thus more bullies and less teachers willing to do anything about it.
Trial run? Every single person on the USA is cut off from the glorious North Korean Kimternet. Mission accomplished.
And once you accept such a premise - that everyone who disagrees with you is acting in bad faith - how could you possibly behave any differently than the NSA did? After all, you are surrounded by Fifth Columns trying to subvert the nation for whatever reason. What else can you do but keep them under surveillance in hopes of catching them in the act?
This is what's really wrong with American political process: treating political opponents as enemies. Democracy works because everyone gets to make their case without having to resort to violence. Democracy is efficient because every viewpoint gets represented and thus considered. But there's also the temptation to simply hurl mud on one's opponents rather than argue one's policies on their merits, and for whatever reason that's the road US has taken. It's a flaw that needs to be corrected.
So both parties listen to the voters, otherwise being rabidly vocal would have no effect. So rather than complain that they can't read your mind, why don't you learn from these special interest groups and start your own? Because "Party X only listens to me if I speak" is not exactly a damning judgement, at least not on the party.
US military sure takes Christmas seriously.
Neither the US nor the UK have tyrants. They have officials who were elected by popular vote. So unless you were planning immolating yourself in front of Buckingham Palace as a protest for your country's policies, the quote is not really appropriate.
Democracies reflect their citizens. You don't have to like that reflection, but if you don't, breaking the mirror only adds more disfigurements from the flying shards.
We decided to not let people starve, and institutionalized that decision in the form of social security. However, setting up said social security in such a way that businesses suffer less costs from paying their employees insufficient wages than they would without social security in place - because automation is not free - creates perverse incentives. It rewards paying employees less and punishes any competitors who pay decent wages. That's a dumb and arguably evil thing to do.
So, just hypothetically speaking, you would be okay with being followed and every single one of your actions recorded and publicly reported 24/7? Because with modern computer vision and ubiquitous cameras, that question is becoming less hypothetical every day. And that, in turn, is quickly turning the entire society into a giant panopticon.
Look up Finlandization. Hell can take many forms, and none are made better by being forced to smile and pretend everything's okay.
The question is not who employes them, the question is who pays for their living expenses. If companies don't pay a living wage, then that's you and me.
?
Then it shouldn't really matter if they're employed or not, now should it? After all, if their labor is worth little, then the economy is little affected if it's removed, right?
You can't have it both ways. Either these people's labor is valuable, or it is not. If it is, then pay them for it. If it's not, then it doesn't matter whether they're employed or not, because they're poor either way and the economy is by definition unaffected by losing low-value labour; the only ones affected is McDonald's and Wal-Mart who'll have to shell out for automation rather than continue having their profits subsidized by having me pay their workforce. Which one is it?
"Begging the question" has multiple meanings: the literal meaning, similar to "rising the question", and another: "assuming the conclusion" which originated from a particularly bad translation of a latin phrase. You, on the other hand, confused the concept of sharing with its exact opposite, "exclusive use".