"Space Data pulled off something big: It convinced the US Patent and Trademark Office to cancel most of one of Project Loon’s foundational patents, and say that Space Data came up with the idea first.
Most likely they did that by providing compelling evidence that their claim to prior art is true. That is the only way to invalidate an existing patent.
The problem with suppressing conspiracy theories, and promoting "authoritative" sources, is that it makes real conspiracies even easier for the authorities to cover up.
Fact 1: "This time" change is happening much faster
Nonsense. Productivity growth is stagnant, and has been since 2007. That is very well documented, and is the main reason that wage growth has also been stagnant.
Between 1880 and 1920, 40% of the the population went from farms to factories. Nothing like that is happening today. 5 million people drive for a living. That is THREE PERCENT of the work force. Those jobs may be wiped out by SDCs over ten years or so. That is a far less dramatic change.
The "deep learning" revolution started in 2006. How many jobs have been lost to DL in the eleven years since? Approximately this many: 0.
I didn't understand I wanted a smartphone until I actually had one
You were not alone. Back in 2007, the Slashdot consensus was that the iPhone was lame, had pointless features, and was doomed to failure since nobody wanted to use an iPod as a phone.
Who cares if crowdfunding projects meet some academic definition of "innovation"?
Indeed. The most cost effective innovations are incremental improvements to existing products. Sure, we should fund an occasional moonshot, but that is not where most R&D money should be spent.
This is just the normal collection of nonsense, myths and fallacies.
Myth 1: "This time" change is happening much faster Fact: Change is happening slower this time. Productivity growth is stagnating not accelerating.
Myth 2: Demand will be flat despite falling prices. Fact: Rising prices means prices fall in real terms, and people consume more goods and services. In the past, this rise in demand has outpaced productivity improvements.
Myth 3: Everything will be automated. Fact: This ignores comparative advantage. There will always be jobs where humans are relatively better than machines.
Myth 4: Productivity improvements cause poverty. Productivity improvements not only bring prosperity and rising living standards, they are the only thing that will do so.
Because when robots can do everything (or nearly everything) a person can do, what is the prospect for employment, let alone increased employment?
The process of replacement of human labor with automation is actually slowing down. Manufacturing jobs are mostly already automated, and service jobs are proving very hard to automate. Many, many jobs require general AI, and despite progress in machine learning, we are nowhere close to human level machine intelligence. For now, it is just science fiction, and when it arrives it will change the world in such fundamental ways that "jobs" will likely be the least of our concerns.
Before, people always moved on to jobs that machines couldn't do. First from farming to manufacturing, then to services.
This is obvious in hindsight, but is NOT what was predicted at the time. When farms were being automated, factories were also being automated, so it was "obvious" that manufacturing could not absorb the labor surplus. That turned out to be wrong because of Jevon's paradox. As manufacturing labor became more productive, demand for workers went up instead of down as demand for manufactured products soared. But that also happens today. As services become more efficient, and thus cheaper, demand will go up, and if rising demand outpaces productivity demand (as it has in the past) employment will go up, not down.
*any* website can query your browser for available payment info.
Nonsense. That is NOT what TFA says, and that is not how it currently works in Chrome. The website can request a popup, just like they can now display an order form. But that does not "query your browser for available payment info". I requires user input before any payment is made, and requires the user to enter the CVV#. In the future, the vendor will never even see the CC#.
In addition, the browser maker - Mozilla, Microsoft, Google, etc... - could (will) have access to this info and any transactions.
I trust Google more than I trust Equifax, or any other random vendor. Google will have a huge incentive to keep this secure, and they have as much expertise as anyone. I don't need to trust Microsoft or Mozilla because I don't use their browsers for ecommerce.
I don't trust any browser to store even my Slashdot login password. Why in the world would I trust it with my credit card?
Because the alternative to sharing your password is to keep it secret and type it each time you need it. But the alternative to your browser storing your CC# is that it is stored by every online merchant you buy from.
I have no idea either, but I am willing to speculate: In Colorado, the transition from prairie to mountains is abrupt, and migrating birds will often follow the front range. Migrating insects are not known to navigate using geographic features as guides, and instead tend to follow wind patterns. The birds tend to be strung out in a N-S direction, and the insect swarm is more likely to be a "blob". So maybe that is what makes the pattern look different.
The problem with superstar programmers is they are hard to count on
They are also hard to detect. How do you know someone is a "superstar" before you hire them? Many people interview well, and are even good at writing toy programs on a whiteboard. Yet they turn out to be mediocre programmers when doing real work on a bloated installed base.
If you ask a team of programmers who is the "superstar" on their team, I doubt if they would all give the same answer. The team's manager might give yet another answer.
People use the term "free market" to mean two different things: 1. A market that is open to competition, where anyone can buy, and anyone can sell, all with equal access. 2. A market free from regulation.
These two things are nearly opposites. The GPP is referring to #1. You are referring to #2. Hence the confusion.
It is best to avoid the term "free market" and instead say "competitive market" or "unregulated market" depending on what you mean, unless, of course, you intend to obfuscate.
It is not clear if this is "bad for consumers". Mergers do not always reduce competition. If a market has one or two dominant companies, then competition can be increased if the "little guys" consolidate to challenge them. Verizon is bigger than Sprint and T-Mobile combined, and AT&T is nearly as big. Cellular is a business where bigness matters more than most because of the cost of infrastructure.
Disclaimer: I am a T-Mobile customer, and I am mostly happy with their service.
Slashdot Mirror
"Space Data pulled off something big: It convinced the US Patent and Trademark Office to cancel most of one of Project Loon’s foundational patents, and say that Space Data came up with the idea first.
Most likely they did that by providing compelling evidence that their claim to prior art is true. That is the only way to invalidate an existing patent.
The problem with suppressing conspiracy theories, and promoting "authoritative" sources, is that it makes real conspiracies even easier for the authorities to cover up.
Fact 1: "This time" change is happening much faster
Nonsense. Productivity growth is stagnant, and has been since 2007. That is very well documented, and is the main reason that wage growth has also been stagnant.
Between 1880 and 1920, 40% of the the population went from farms to factories. Nothing like that is happening today. 5 million people drive for a living. That is THREE PERCENT of the work force. Those jobs may be wiped out by SDCs over ten years or so. That is a far less dramatic change.
The "deep learning" revolution started in 2006. How many jobs have been lost to DL in the eleven years since? Approximately this many: 0.
I didn't understand I wanted a smartphone until I actually had one
You were not alone. Back in 2007, the Slashdot consensus was that the iPhone was lame, had pointless features, and was doomed to failure since nobody wanted to use an iPod as a phone.
Who cares if crowdfunding projects meet some academic definition of "innovation"?
Indeed. The most cost effective innovations are incremental improvements to existing products. Sure, we should fund an occasional moonshot, but that is not where most R&D money should be spent.
Some thoughts on why this time will be different:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
This is just the normal collection of nonsense, myths and fallacies.
Myth 1: "This time" change is happening much faster
Fact: Change is happening slower this time. Productivity growth is stagnating not accelerating.
Myth 2: Demand will be flat despite falling prices.
Fact: Rising prices means prices fall in real terms, and people consume more goods and services. In the past, this rise in demand has outpaced productivity improvements.
Myth 3: Everything will be automated.
Fact: This ignores comparative advantage. There will always be jobs where humans are relatively better than machines.
Myth 4: Productivity improvements cause poverty.
Productivity improvements not only bring prosperity and rising living standards, they are the only thing that will do so.
Because when robots can do everything (or nearly everything) a person can do, what is the prospect for employment, let alone increased employment?
The process of replacement of human labor with automation is actually slowing down. Manufacturing jobs are mostly already automated, and service jobs are proving very hard to automate. Many, many jobs require general AI, and despite progress in machine learning, we are nowhere close to human level machine intelligence. For now, it is just science fiction, and when it arrives it will change the world in such fundamental ways that "jobs" will likely be the least of our concerns.
Before, people always moved on to jobs that machines couldn't do. First from farming to manufacturing, then to services.
This is obvious in hindsight, but is NOT what was predicted at the time. When farms were being automated, factories were also being automated, so it was "obvious" that manufacturing could not absorb the labor surplus. That turned out to be wrong because of Jevon's paradox. As manufacturing labor became more productive, demand for workers went up instead of down as demand for manufactured products soared. But that also happens today. As services become more efficient, and thus cheaper, demand will go up, and if rising demand outpaces productivity demand (as it has in the past) employment will go up, not down.
The only reason to count them different are as fake status symbols.
As status symbols, how are Apple products "fake"?
No. there is an addtional pair of sensors that are critical- especially to accident avoidance.
The ears.
Nope. Deaf people can drive, and they have no higher rate of accidents than non-deaf people.
With the data stored in the browser, then *any* website can query your stored payment info.
Bullcrap. This is totally wrong. RTFA ... or download the latest Chrome and try it.
If I, as a consumer, could control the use of, the "When", that this number can be used
That is exactly how it works. You get a popup, and you type in your CVV# to authorize the transaction. You have total control.
*any* website can query your browser for available payment info.
Nonsense. That is NOT what TFA says, and that is not how it currently works in Chrome. The website can request a popup, just like they can now display an order form. But that does not "query your browser for available payment info". I requires user input before any payment is made, and requires the user to enter the CVV#. In the future, the vendor will never even see the CC#.
In addition, the browser maker - Mozilla, Microsoft, Google, etc... - could (will) have access to this info and any transactions.
I trust Google more than I trust Equifax, or any other random vendor. Google will have a huge incentive to keep this secure, and they have as much expertise as anyone. I don't need to trust Microsoft or Mozilla because I don't use their browsers for ecommerce.
Seriously, is everything in these encryption algorithms protected by hoping that the product of two large prime numbers can't be easily factored?
No. State-of-the-art encryption algorithms haven't been based on "factoring prime numbers" for decades.
I don't trust any browser to store even my Slashdot login password. Why in the world would I trust it with my credit card?
Because the alternative to sharing your password is to keep it secret and type it each time you need it. But the alternative to your browser storing your CC# is that it is stored by every online merchant you buy from.
How about no.
How about YES. It is implausible that this will be any worse than the existing system.
I have no idea either, but I am willing to speculate: In Colorado, the transition from prairie to mountains is abrupt, and migrating birds will often follow the front range. Migrating insects are not known to navigate using geographic features as guides, and instead tend to follow wind patterns. The birds tend to be strung out in a N-S direction, and the insect swarm is more likely to be a "blob". So maybe that is what makes the pattern look different.
1. A market that is open to competition, where anyone can buy, and anyone can sell, all with equal access.
2. A market free from regulation.
That's the same damn definition.
Not at all. An unregulated market often will result in anticompetitive price fixing, cartels, fraud, and protection rackets.
The problem with superstar programmers is they are hard to count on
They are also hard to detect. How do you know someone is a "superstar" before you hire them? Many people interview well, and are even good at writing toy programs on a whiteboard. Yet they turn out to be mediocre programmers when doing real work on a bloated installed base.
If you ask a team of programmers who is the "superstar" on their team, I doubt if they would all give the same answer. The team's manager might give yet another answer.
What kind of free market operates by force?
People use the term "free market" to mean two different things:
1. A market that is open to competition, where anyone can buy, and anyone can sell, all with equal access.
2. A market free from regulation.
These two things are nearly opposites. The GPP is referring to #1. You are referring to #2. Hence the confusion.
It is best to avoid the term "free market" and instead say "competitive market" or "unregulated market" depending on what you mean, unless, of course, you intend to obfuscate.
It is not clear if this is "bad for consumers". Mergers do not always reduce competition. If a market has one or two dominant companies, then competition can be increased if the "little guys" consolidate to challenge them. Verizon is bigger than Sprint and T-Mobile combined, and AT&T is nearly as big. Cellular is a business where bigness matters more than most because of the cost of infrastructure.
Disclaimer: I am a T-Mobile customer, and I am mostly happy with their service.
In an eCommerce setup, the salesperson is totally bypassed
That is a feature, not a bug.
I don't believe this study has any merit whatsoever.
I agree that it seems implausible, but it was done by the Federal Reserve. What motivation would they have to lie or distort?
Not many people are going to move across the country for a packing job in a warehouse.
It'll probably take a bit more time than you kids have in office.
That is the whole point. Every president likes to make promises that don't come due till long after they have left office.
Unless the Trump administration is seeking increased NASA funding for this fiscal year, you can just ignore anything they say about space.
Do you have an alternative plan to protect bees from pests?
The purpose of the pesticides is not to "protect bees". It is to protect the crops from harmful insects. The bees are collateral damage.
I'd argue disclosure is a condition imposed on freedom of speech not an abridgement of speech.
I'd argue that "a condition imposed on" and "an abridgment" are the exact same thing.