Idk about you, but I'd think an obvious robot hand would be easier to deal with than a fake looking piece of plastic mimicking a human hand.
It's probably impossible to know until you are actually in the same situation. There have been highly functional, highly useful hand prosthesis long before robotics - the classical hook is just one example - but the vast majority of patients have always preferred a hand mimic, even when it is completely nonfunctional and even when the mimiry is far from perfect.
Not getting stared at, and fitting in, is critically important to people, in this case as in others. Should'nt be too surprising when you think about it in such terms.
I wasn't considering the time spent shopping for books, whether on an online site or in a store, but the overall time I have to read. Besides, browsing the store is part of the fun, not a chore. I basically count that as part of my reading time.
Welcome to the minority you share with the employees at Amazon HQ.
What minority? Most people do work or have other income sources (even though unemployment is alarmingly high the world over). And my income is slightly less than the average for people my age where I live.
My point was that books are not an expensive indulgence; not in absolute terms and not compared to other everyday extras ranging from movie tickets, coffee-shop coffe or music buys, to weekend beers or tobacco.
I'm not saying the price difference doesn't matter for anybody, or for any kind of book. I am saying that for many people the limit for book buying is not how many books you can afford, but how many you have time to read. And after all, if you're hard up for cash, used book stores or the library are excellent sources for reading material as well, and cheaper still than Amazon.
After you browsed through the real bookstores, where did you buy them?
I usually both browse and buy at real bookstores. In fact, I sometimes browse on Amazon (the ratings are very useful), then buy at the bookstore.
Why? Because even when the price difference is large, the absolute price is still quite low. Besides, these days the price difference often isn't actually very large anymore, once you add the cost of shipping. The difference may be that of a plain cup of coffee or less for a book I may spend weeks enjoying. And I can get the book right then, right there, not have to wait for shipping and schedule a pick-up time.
I work and I have disposable income. I don't, however, have a lot of free time. I can buy far more books than I will ever have time to read without making much of a dent in my personal play money. The limit is not money but time. Books I can't find elsewhere I order from Amazon or Rakuten, but otherwise I prefer the physical store.
So what about Japan then? That's a large, heavily populated country with both huge urban conglomerates and a sparsely populated countryside. Or Sweden, about the same size, with a diverse mix of cultures.
Of course, there's relatively small income equality in both cases. it would be intereting to see how income inequality correlates with murder rate in general. I wouldn't be too surprised if it turns out to be as important as, or even more important than, average income itself.
The post says the total number of exits is fixed. You're just shuffling the order of the queue. A limited benefit, if any benefit at all - the people in the general queue will wait even longer, with more breakdowns and medical emergencies as a result.
And the post itself mentions the solution: Make off-site parking more viable so more people get in and out on buses. That would benefit everybody, rather than pitching one subgroup against another.
Just to be clear here: the devastation is all due to the tsunami, not to the reactor failure. Foreign media seem to often forget or ignore that the disaster was the earthquake and tsunami. That's what killed almost 20k people dead and destroyed the homes of many hundreds of thousands of people.
In the longer term you're absolutely right. And in the longer term I don't think automation is an overall bad thing. I suspect that those of us in the industrialized world will be in for a rude awakening when we realize that it's the developing countries that will reap most of the benefits, but that's a digression.
What I meant with my comment was that the only people that benefit specifically from lowering wages* to stave off automation are the employers. It's a short-term event - buying people a few years or so - and effectively won't be reflected in the long-term price level changes. And the effect on the wage level spreads to areas that are not otherwise immediately affected by automation. The employers are effectively reaping the benefit of automation a bit early; a margin profit that we're unlikely to see.
* Wages can be lowered in other ways than reducing the pay. Adding to the workload, no compensation for inflation, more responsibility, night or shift work, or split shifts; they are all effectively the same as lowering the wage.
"The higher the minimum wage, the more incentive there will be to automate those minimum-wage jobs.
The wage really doesn't matter. What matters is if automation is able to do the job at all - where "able" of course includes social acceptance and other non-technical factors as well. But once you are able to replace it, the cost of that replacement will drop, and will drop below the human wage sooner or later.
Trying to race automation to the cost bottom is an exercise in futility; it's a race humans will not win. The only ones that benefit from it are the employers that get cheaper labour faster as a result.
On the other hand, if I don't have your data I can't check your results. If you want to keep your data secret for a decade, you really should plan to not publish anything relying on it for that time either. Release all the papers when you release the data.
Also, who gets to decide when a study is a replication and when it is a new result? Few replication attempts are doing exactly the same thing as the original paper, for good reason. If you want to see if it holds up you want to use different analysis or similar anyway. And "use" data? What if another group produces their own data and compares with yours? Is that "using" the data? What if they compare your published results? Is that using it?
A partial solution, I think, is for a group such as yours to pre-plan the data use already when collecting it. So you decide from start to publish a subset of that data early and publish papers based on that. Then publish another subset for further results and so on.
But what we really need is for data to be fully citeable. A way to publish the data as a reserach result by itself - perhaps the data, together with a paper describing it (but not any analysis). ANyone is free to use the data for their own research, but will of course cite you when they do. A good, serious data set can probably rack up more citations than just about any paper out there. That will give the producers the scientific credit it deserves.
People project personhood on lots of things already. Apart from the obvious - search the net for what people think about their roombas - even stuff like cars are designed to evoke it. And it's not as if there's been a dearth of research on these issues already.
Or move to LINE. That one has almost as many users as WhatsApp already.
Which leads me to wonder: is Facebook going to play money-bag whack-a-mole with every new social network that shows up? That's going to get expensive really fast.
Note, the subjects do not need to know (and shouldn't know) the actual research being done, just that they're part of a research project. Usually they're told that the researchers are testing one thing, while it's something entirely different that's really being tested.
That generally needs specific approval, though, and normally always requirs that the subject gets briefed about the real intention of the research afterwards. Also, I'm not at all certain that serving alcohol does not constitute medicating the subjects; that would mean a still tougher IRB review and approval process.
I have a Nexus 7, but I found the screen just too small for double-column papers. I now use a Sony Tablet Z and it's nearly perfect. It's still light enough to easily hold in one hand, and I can easily read a single-column paper in portrait format, or a double-column paper either in portrait or landscape, depending on how tired my eyes are at the time.
I use "PDF Viewer", actually "EBook Droid" for PDFs, and it's OK for papers. I'll try ezPDF as well. I also use Sony's "small app" notes application to take notes which works fairly well.
The one thing I miss is Zotero integration. I don't really need Zotero on my tablet, but I would like to take notes and get the notes automagically imported to Zotero.
A bike is not really practical in places with snow or ice in winter; or when part of your daily routine involves bringing family members to school or work.
In my case, though, I use public transportation nowadays; I drive neither car nor bike, and keep my license only because it's a convenient form of ID.
Motorcycles and aviation catered to a certain demographic of people looking to get out there and do something interesting, something crazy. Perhaps they were the adrenaline junkies of their time.
I have a bike license. Haven't owned or driven a bike in ten years, and by now I probably never will again.
Part of it is simply growing up. It's just not as much fun any longer as it was in my 20's. And with work and other committments I have little time left to ride, never mind maintenance and other chores.
Why young people don't ride, though, has - I guess - nothing to do with risk. Driving is simply not fashionable, and not cool. A generation earlier than me, getting your license (and a bike license especially) was a badge of honour, and a symbol of adulthood. It isn't any longer. Many hobbies rise, flourish and die over time. Once, wood lathing was a major, very popular hobby across Europe and the US; today it's a tiny niche. That's probably where these things are heading as well.
Car ownership has suffered the same decline in cool, but as cars are utilitarian they don't see as large a drop in usage. Young people still drive, but see cars more akin to owning a washer and dryer, not a status symbol. Necessary but boring. Bikes and private airplanes don't have the same level of utility in general, so they suffer more when interest wanes.
Ah, I was too brief. They have an iOS and Android app - effectively a specialized browser with controls for navigating a paper - and the main format is made for the app, working like a proper mobile reader. All the different parts of the paper (Sunday magazines and so on) are available for up to a month or so, and the web site keeps indefinite archives.
But in addition, you have PDF facsimiles of all the regional editions as well, for those that prefer the "real" paper experience. And some people evidently do, especially on large computer screens.
We could add a paper subscription as well if we want, for a fairly modest sum. Effectively the added cost of getting both is not much more than having only the paper edition used to cost us. But one reason we went digital only is to avoid the piles of paper garbage that results:)
We get the digital Asahi Shimbun. It gets us all editions of the full paper, including a browsable, zoomable PDF copy of the morning paper edition, at a price slightly lower than the paper edition cost us earlier.
The reason is mostly convenience: I and my wife can both access the website and the iPad and Android apps at the same time, through the same subscription. With the paper we'd get only a single copy, so I'd end up bringing yesterdays evening paper on the train in the mornings while she'd read the morning edition.
We recently had an issue with HP servers showing temperatures of 255C on motherboard sensors... They said this was a firmware issue and told us to flash the bios to fix this. We did... the sensor now shows -127C. Big help.
"Big help" - Why are you complaining? This is great! Think of the electricity savings! Not only can you stop cooling these servers, you can actually use them to cool your other hardware!
You're not thinking outside the box, that's the problem with you young people.
Slashdot Mirror
It's probably impossible to know until you are actually in the same situation. There have been highly functional, highly useful hand prosthesis long before robotics - the classical hook is just one example - but the vast majority of patients have always preferred a hand mimic, even when it is completely nonfunctional and even when the mimiry is far from perfect.
Not getting stared at, and fitting in, is critically important to people, in this case as in others. Should'nt be too surprising when you think about it in such terms.
I wasn't considering the time spent shopping for books, whether on an online site or in a store, but the overall time I have to read. Besides, browsing the store is part of the fun, not a chore. I basically count that as part of my reading time.
What minority? Most people do work or have other income sources (even though unemployment is alarmingly high the world over). And my income is slightly less than the average for people my age where I live.
My point was that books are not an expensive indulgence; not in absolute terms and not compared to other everyday extras ranging from movie tickets, coffee-shop coffe or music buys, to weekend beers or tobacco.
I'm not saying the price difference doesn't matter for anybody, or for any kind of book. I am saying that for many people the limit for book buying is not how many books you can afford, but how many you have time to read. And after all, if you're hard up for cash, used book stores or the library are excellent sources for reading material as well, and cheaper still than Amazon.
I usually both browse and buy at real bookstores. In fact, I sometimes browse on Amazon (the ratings are very useful), then buy at the bookstore.
Why? Because even when the price difference is large, the absolute price is still quite low. Besides, these days the price difference often isn't actually very large anymore, once you add the cost of shipping. The difference may be that of a plain cup of coffee or less for a book I may spend weeks enjoying. And I can get the book right then, right there, not have to wait for shipping and schedule a pick-up time.
I work and I have disposable income. I don't, however, have a lot of free time. I can buy far more books than I will ever have time to read without making much of a dent in my personal play money. The limit is not money but time. Books I can't find elsewhere I order from Amazon or Rakuten, but otherwise I prefer the physical store.
So what about Japan then? That's a large, heavily populated country with both huge urban conglomerates and a sparsely populated countryside. Or Sweden, about the same size, with a diverse mix of cultures.
Of course, there's relatively small income equality in both cases. it would be intereting to see how income inequality correlates with murder rate in general. I wouldn't be too surprised if it turns out to be as important as, or even more important than, average income itself.
I think this SMBC comic is very appropriate as well: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id...
The post says the total number of exits is fixed. You're just shuffling the order of the queue. A limited benefit, if any benefit at all - the people in the general queue will wait even longer, with more breakdowns and medical emergencies as a result.
And the post itself mentions the solution: Make off-site parking more viable so more people get in and out on buses. That would benefit everybody, rather than pitching one subgroup against another.
Just to be clear here: the devastation is all due to the tsunami, not to the reactor failure. Foreign media seem to often forget or ignore that the disaster was the earthquake and tsunami. That's what killed almost 20k people dead and destroyed the homes of many hundreds of thousands of people.
In the longer term you're absolutely right. And in the longer term I don't think automation is an overall bad thing. I suspect that those of us in the industrialized world will be in for a rude awakening when we realize that it's the developing countries that will reap most of the benefits, but that's a digression.
What I meant with my comment was that the only people that benefit specifically from lowering wages* to stave off automation are the employers. It's a short-term event - buying people a few years or so - and effectively won't be reflected in the long-term price level changes. And the effect on the wage level spreads to areas that are not otherwise immediately affected by automation. The employers are effectively reaping the benefit of automation a bit early; a margin profit that we're unlikely to see.
* Wages can be lowered in other ways than reducing the pay. Adding to the workload, no compensation for inflation, more responsibility, night or shift work, or split shifts; they are all effectively the same as lowering the wage.
"The higher the minimum wage, the more incentive there will be to automate those minimum-wage jobs.
The wage really doesn't matter. What matters is if automation is able to do the job at all - where "able" of course includes social acceptance and other non-technical factors as well. But once you are able to replace it, the cost of that replacement will drop, and will drop below the human wage sooner or later.
Trying to race automation to the cost bottom is an exercise in futility; it's a race humans will not win. The only ones that benefit from it are the employers that get cheaper labour faster as a result.
"genuine anecdotal evidence"
I'm not quite sure you understand the meaning of "genuine" here. Or "evidence"...
On the other hand, if I don't have your data I can't check your results. If you want to keep your data secret for a decade, you really should plan to not publish anything relying on it for that time either. Release all the papers when you release the data.
Also, who gets to decide when a study is a replication and when it is a new result? Few replication attempts are doing exactly the same thing as the original paper, for good reason. If you want to see if it holds up you want to use different analysis or similar anyway. And "use" data? What if another group produces their own data and compares with yours? Is that "using" the data? What if they compare your published results? Is that using it?
A partial solution, I think, is for a group such as yours to pre-plan the data use already when collecting it. So you decide from start to publish a subset of that data early and publish papers based on that. Then publish another subset for further results and so on.
But what we really need is for data to be fully citeable. A way to publish the data as a reserach result by itself - perhaps the data, together with a paper describing it (but not any analysis). ANyone is free to use the data for their own research, but will of course cite you when they do. A good, serious data set can probably rack up more citations than just about any paper out there. That will give the producers the scientific credit it deserves.
People project personhood on lots of things already. Apart from the obvious - search the net for what people think about their roombas - even stuff like cars are designed to evoke it. And it's not as if there's been a dearth of research on these issues already.
Making the robot evil is not the question. Making the robot evil is the answer. "How do I take over the world?" is the question.
"The review said the xbox game goes to 900 and the PS4 one goes to over 1000. Better get a PS4 to play it then."
Or move to LINE. That one has almost as many users as WhatsApp already.
Which leads me to wonder: is Facebook going to play money-bag whack-a-mole with every new social network that shows up? That's going to get expensive really fast.
That generally needs specific approval, though, and normally always requirs that the subject gets briefed about the real intention of the research afterwards. Also, I'm not at all certain that serving alcohol does not constitute medicating the subjects; that would mean a still tougher IRB review and approval process.
Use Owncloud. Does pretty much what you seem to want.
I have a Nexus 7, but I found the screen just too small for double-column papers. I now use a Sony Tablet Z and it's nearly perfect. It's still light enough to easily hold in one hand, and I can easily read a single-column paper in portrait format, or a double-column paper either in portrait or landscape, depending on how tired my eyes are at the time.
I use "PDF Viewer", actually "EBook Droid" for PDFs, and it's OK for papers. I'll try ezPDF as well. I also use Sony's "small app" notes application to take notes which works fairly well.
The one thing I miss is Zotero integration. I don't really need Zotero on my tablet, but I would like to take notes and get the notes automagically imported to Zotero.
A bike is not really practical in places with snow or ice in winter; or when part of your daily routine involves bringing family members to school or work.
In my case, though, I use public transportation nowadays; I drive neither car nor bike, and keep my license only because it's a convenient form of ID.
I have a bike license. Haven't owned or driven a bike in ten years, and by now I probably never will again.
Part of it is simply growing up. It's just not as much fun any longer as it was in my 20's. And with work and other committments I have little time left to ride, never mind maintenance and other chores.
Why young people don't ride, though, has - I guess - nothing to do with risk. Driving is simply not fashionable, and not cool. A generation earlier than me, getting your license (and a bike license especially) was a badge of honour, and a symbol of adulthood. It isn't any longer. Many hobbies rise, flourish and die over time. Once, wood lathing was a major, very popular hobby across Europe and the US; today it's a tiny niche. That's probably where these things are heading as well.
Car ownership has suffered the same decline in cool, but as cars are utilitarian they don't see as large a drop in usage. Young people still drive, but see cars more akin to owning a washer and dryer, not a status symbol. Necessary but boring. Bikes and private airplanes don't have the same level of utility in general, so they suffer more when interest wanes.
Ah, I was too brief. They have an iOS and Android app - effectively a specialized browser with controls for navigating a paper - and the main format is made for the app, working like a proper mobile reader. All the different parts of the paper (Sunday magazines and so on) are available for up to a month or so, and the web site keeps indefinite archives.
But in addition, you have PDF facsimiles of all the regional editions as well, for those that prefer the "real" paper experience. And some people evidently do, especially on large computer screens.
We could add a paper subscription as well if we want, for a fairly modest sum. Effectively the added cost of getting both is not much more than having only the paper edition used to cost us. But one reason we went digital only is to avoid the piles of paper garbage that results :)
We get the digital Asahi Shimbun. It gets us all editions of the full paper, including a browsable, zoomable PDF copy of the morning paper edition, at a price slightly lower than the paper edition cost us earlier.
The reason is mostly convenience: I and my wife can both access the website and the iPad and Android apps at the same time, through the same subscription. With the paper we'd get only a single copy, so I'd end up bringing yesterdays evening paper on the train in the mornings while she'd read the morning edition.
"Big help" - Why are you complaining? This is great! Think of the electricity savings! Not only can you stop cooling these servers, you can actually use them to cool your other hardware!
You're not thinking outside the box, that's the problem with you young people.
I knew tennis could be an expensive sport, but I had no idea...