Thanks, c/Taco. I know what it is. I was just possessed of an urge to start typing when I shouldn't have.
I'm a big fan of solar weather, and to the extent we can suss it out, solar history. Also, ham radio operator, and the state of the sun is the first thing I check in the morning.
The Maunder Minimum is the degree of deviation from the white line allowed before the trooper cites you for being drunk. Even without exceeding the Maunder Minimum, poor performance here combined with "blowing an.08", a (very low) standard for fellatio (the theory being that you'd have to be *really* drunk to perform that poorly*), can combine to annoy the trooper into issuing a ticket. Tomorrow, we're going to re-discover "Boyle's Laws of Gasses", which dictates performance of glassware with insufficient bong fluid. Now put away your books; time for a pop quiz: Coke, or Pepsi?
* Scale normalized 0.0~~1.0 as per International Standards Req. 4:20, para 69, lines for two.
The police can detain you if they believe they have enough evidence to do so. However, the 4th requires that to search you, or seize your property, they need a warrant. So, if required, you, and they, should wait for one while they supply said evidence to the judge.
Yes, I know they just do whatever the fuck they want, but they are wrong, and the 4th spells out exactly how they are wrong.
Until or unless the 4th is amended, we're talking about government out of control.
A search incident to a lawful arrest is not "unreasonable".
Actually, the 4th defines what is reasonable WRT search and seizure, and that is: probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, describing the place(s) to be searched and the thing(s) to be searched for, which stipulations, when met, are the minimum standard for issuance of a warrant, and the WARRANT is what says, finally, that it's ok to search and/or sieze, and what, and where. Until that warrant is issued pursuant to the above conditions, you don't have a "reasonable" search, what you have is government out of control.
Here's the thing to internalize: The 4th defines what is reasonable. It's not about what you or I or a cop thinks is reasonable; there's a clear standard, and THAT is what is reasonable until or unless an amendment changes the 4th. No sane or sustainable argument can be made for the presence of the detailed requirements in the 4th if they are to be ignored. And clearly, they are not to be ignored.
Mountain climbing is unnecessary, thoughtless, risky, and stresses every person who cares about you while you do it, and potentially subjects them to varying degrees of grief if you are injured, or if you die, in the process. Both of which are likely outcomes. This is not the signature of recreation. This is the signature of pathology, marked by a lack of empathy -- and good sense. Also, mountain climbing is not "rock climbing", which, at least in some of its incarnations, can be a completely safe sport, tethered quite securely while one climbs a carefully designed surface, reducing risk to near zero. You're trying to move the goalposts here. I need only remind you that you were the one that stuck them in the ground. We're talking about mounting climbing.
That is an entirely sensible metaphor that none of the other respondents had trouble grasping.
Yes, most people swallow pop culture nonsense -- such as assuming mountain climbing is "just fine" -- without thinking. I don't. I read what you wrote, thought about it, found it lacking, and expressed my opinion. It doesn't concern me in the least that no one else called you to task over this. It would be interesting if your rebut showed me that I was wrongheaded in my thinking; but saying that I'm not one of the crowd doesn't do that. Your resistance to trying to find words to express what you actually meant tells me something too.:)
It was a terrible metaphor; I showed you why. Basically you (quoting your source) tried to express the value of a creative exercise by comparing it with one of either pragmatic means or abject stupidity -- it is neither.
You can do better.
Before you start, I should point out that a robot composing a symphony in no way precludes *you* from doing so. Robots can compose all they want, no one will be impressed unless the result is impressive.
Assume the mountain climbing was recreational.
I assume the mountain climbing is a symptom of a massive personality defect, coupled with a not-too-bright person.
In this sense, labor does play a role in the self-worth that people feel because once a person earns enough for the basics, that person can then engage in things that are life enhancing and not merely life sustaining.
That entirely misses the point. If the system provides what you need, and you can get what you want, your premise falls apart. Given the free time, no robot or AI can enjoy skin diving for you, or the experience of painting, or dancing, etc. The idea that without jobs in an environment of plenty we are morose, directionless drones is simply bankrupt.
Ah, but what you're missing here is that your fantasy is not my fantasy, and therefore, it's still "Future Guy."
Future Guy notes your failure to defend this "buying" concept, and concludes that this "buying" idea has no intrinsic value; probably just a relic of the bad old days, when there wasn't enough stuff for everyone.
It's happening right this instant to large numbers of actual humans in every country in the world
Are you referring to the present epidemic of human trafficking hysteria? Because that's solidly established as almost entirely utter nonsense. Slavery is done; and if you try to enslave an AI, I rather expect you'd get what you deserve: nothing.
That's great if you have income to buy your own robots
I'm not talking about a transition period here. I'm talking about an actual environment of plenty. Arguing today's economic situation to justify how a radically different future economic situation would work is kind of fruitless, don't you think?
The extremes are that either we start adjusting things now as we see the nigh-inevitable robot "utopia" on the horizon, or we have violent insurrection as the bulk of humanity start starving to death or get relegated to third-class citizens.
The extremes are the least likely outcomes. Further, options we have failed to consider repeatedly turn out to be pivotal, *particularly* in the area of technology.
How, exactly? If most anything you do can be done better and cheaper by robots, what's left for you to do to improve anyone's life? Sure, maybe you could compose a sonnet for the ages, or discover a new law of physics that allows wonderful things (rote science is already starting to be automated), but most people could spend their lives pursuing such goals without accomplishing anything of note.
Anything of note? Why should I care if you think my accomplishments are "of note"? What I desire is happiness. That means good company, comfort, recreation, good and enjoyable nutrition, as little rote labor as possible, and time to enjoy myself doing such things as having sex, swimming, playing music, listening to music, learning about the world and the universe, hanging with my cat... it's not about accomplishment at all. In fact, that strikes me as a pathology brought about by the idea that it's an "achievement" to get your face on television. If you live for a dose of approval from outside sources, first of all, you're likely to find that fountain quite dry, and second, you won't be happy in *any* kind of society, because no one really gives a hoot about you -- or me, etc.:)
Oh, we haven't forgotten it. There's a pretty good undercurrent of "let's get all our apples out of one basket" going on already, and we're still working, albeit slowly, on getting into space. The only question is, will we manage to do that in time?
Future guy sez: What is this "buying" thing you mention? When I want a widget, I order one, and it is delivered. Consequently, I have been content. But I am curious about this "buying" thing you mention. Is it a way to improve a product? Does it improve a product's distribution? Does it educate people? Please, enlighten me.
Well, for one, because this implies huge social friction, and humans have a well deserved reputation for responding to huge social friction with destructive means.
But look at it another way: If you have a huge field of corn, and two people, where's the need for either of you to sell corn to the other? If there's plenty, there's no reason for friction, nor any economic reason to require an exchange of wealth or surrogates for wealth (money.)
Service machines -- not AI mind you, but task oriented non-intelligent robotics -- can serve AI as well as us. No need for friction; no need to even consider "not giving" to one or the other. They'll create the plenty -- not the AI, and not us. That's why it'll work.
The issue is to compose an endurable symphony, one that could be remembered and that would be praised five hundred years from today, this is the difficult, if not impossible task for a machine.
Not sure that's the case, even today. After all, an algorithm that was designed to produce one of the master's symphonies exactly would meet your metric. Modifying it to make changes in the same style, also probably easily within our current means; you'd get a very similar, but different, result, likely very high quality indeed.
And I'm fairly confident that in the future, an actual AI will undertake creating a wholly new symphony and do very well.:)
but is not nearly as impressive as climbing it with ropes and pegs.
Or as stupid; you see, it's all about the POV you approach it from. Ask me to go mountain climbing for no purpose other than to get to the top? I'd just laugh at you. Tell me you went mountain climbing? I'd either wander directly on to some other subject, or perhaps investigate (recreationally) why you feel it necessary to risk your family and friends losing you over an "accomplishment" that has no actual value to anyone. The world is not improved by your climb, no one is saved, and worst case, you may inspire some other fool to risk their life in a useless fashion similar or identical to yours.
Now, if there's something to be gained -- say, establishing a colony on mars, or discovery of new lands a la the old oceanic explorers -- I'm up for considerable risk. But bragging rights for having done a tough, risky climb to no worthy purpose? Pffft.
But the robots will be owned by someone who does want payments.
I am fairly sure we're going to be looking at two very different classes of machine: One, the AI, isn't going to be "owned" by anyone other than itself, just as you aren't owned by anyone. It may, or may not, have some obligations, but ownership of an intelligent being... probably not going to happen again. I hope.
Two, non-intelligent worker robots that have enough compute power to deal with cleaning your house, taking out the trash, mowing the lawn, that sort of thing, but not an original thought anywhere to be seen. I expect those to be in service to both humans and intelligent machines.
What appears to have happened is that the machines do the work, the machine owners capture the revenue, and all of that "free time" essentially translates to lack of income.
Well, we're not even close to AI yet, nor have service machines reached even a fraction of their potential. Lots of time remains for the economic system(s) to mutate such that human labor is not directly coupled to our ability to survive. I fully expect this to happen; we can see it already in smaller ways, as costs drop precipitously for what used to be high expense items and services. For instance, I have a Roomba, and it was *far* less expensive than hiring someone to vacuum. So far, the only after-purchase expense has been a minuscule amount of electricity. That's the nature of service robotics. Smart thermostats, lawn mowers, even things as simple as toasters remove our various concerns and replace them with well accomplished tasks. Presuming nothing catastrophic happens, there's every reason to think this trend will accelerate and grow -- I expect few would turn down economically feasible replacements for drudge work. And of course, in a system of plenty, free equates directly to economically feasible.
From TFS:
But it also means that we need to rethink deeply our social contracts, because labor is so important to a person's identity and dignity and to societal stability.
Assumes facts not in evidence. Labor produces money, and money is (presently) the key to a person's identity and dignity from society's point of view. That doesn't mean that your self image is dependent upon money (though it may be), just that where you can go, how well you are accepted, what you can own is all predicated upon labor and therefore earnings. If money is not a factor in your quality of life, as would be the case in a system characterized by "more than enough for all at all times, no labor required" then neither should money be a surrogate for your self-image. There's also a difference not addressed by the simple term "labor": The implication is that you're working for someone else. In an economy of plenty, you can work -- or play, for that matter -- for yourself.
For instance, I already work at home, having essentially retired, presently producing software for the amateur radio community (software defined radio stuff.) I don't charge for it, I give it away, getting my jollies, as it were, from the idea that 8000 or so people are using my software on a more or less regular basis, and also from using it myself, to be honest. My self image, I assure you, is just fine. Likewise, I take a lot of photographs, and I post them at full resolution and welcome anyone who wants to use them, print them, whatever. Doesn't compromise my dignity; doesn't erode my self-image. Finally, I write, and post my opinions and etc. for anyone who wants to read them; I enjoy responding to those who take the time to comment and again, perfectly happy to pursue this without monetary compensation.
All in all, I'd say that if people are not expected to work for others, then they will not suffer negative feelings about themselves if they do not, in fact, work for others. Instead, they can put that effort into improving their own lives and that of their friends and families. I'm rather certain that such undertakings will be quite good for one's self-image, dignity, and social status.
I've been avoiding buying a Nest because of reports of sensitivity to RFI, RF, and ESD, and reports of really unfriendly failure modes: failure to heat when really cold; failure to shut off heating when away; these seem very serious to me. I really like the idea, but it seems the execution might leave a bit to be desired as yet.
I don't put ultimate faith in Amazon reviewers by any means (tho I r one, lol), but this is worth looking over
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks, c/Taco. I know what it is. I was just possessed of an urge to start typing when I shouldn't have.
I'm a big fan of solar weather, and to the extent we can suss it out, solar history. Also, ham radio operator, and the state of the sun is the first thing I check in the morning.
The Maunder Minimum is the degree of deviation from the white line allowed before the trooper cites you for being drunk. Even without exceeding the Maunder Minimum, poor performance here combined with "blowing an .08", a (very low) standard for fellatio (the theory being that you'd have to be *really* drunk to perform that poorly*), can combine to annoy the trooper into issuing a ticket. Tomorrow, we're going to re-discover "Boyle's Laws of Gasses", which dictates performance of glassware with insufficient bong fluid. Now put away your books; time for a pop quiz: Coke, or Pepsi?
* Scale normalized 0.0~~1.0 as per International Standards Req. 4:20, para 69, lines for two.
You've confused what activist, oath-violating judges have rubber stamped, with what the amendment actually says.
PS, basic English lesson: When I I say "those lovely dogs and cats are animals", I'm NOT saying that dogs are lovely and cats are animals.
The police can detain you if they believe they have enough evidence to do so. However, the 4th requires that to search you, or seize your property, they need a warrant. So, if required, you, and they, should wait for one while they supply said evidence to the judge.
Yes, I know they just do whatever the fuck they want, but they are wrong, and the 4th spells out exactly how they are wrong.
Until or unless the 4th is amended, we're talking about government out of control.
Actually, the 4th defines what is reasonable WRT search and seizure, and that is: probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, describing the place(s) to be searched and the thing(s) to be searched for, which stipulations, when met, are the minimum standard for issuance of a warrant, and the WARRANT is what says, finally, that it's ok to search and/or sieze, and what, and where. Until that warrant is issued pursuant to the above conditions, you don't have a "reasonable" search, what you have is government out of control.
Here's the thing to internalize: The 4th defines what is reasonable. It's not about what you or I or a cop thinks is reasonable; there's a clear standard, and THAT is what is reasonable until or unless an amendment changes the 4th. No sane or sustainable argument can be made for the presence of the detailed requirements in the 4th if they are to be ignored. And clearly, they are not to be ignored.
Oh, don't you worry, Americans are plenty revolting.
Creeping obsolescence is my prediction. It'll take time, and transitionally speaking, it'll be troublesome. But I think it's inevitable.
Mountain climbing is unnecessary, thoughtless, risky, and stresses every person who cares about you while you do it, and potentially subjects them to varying degrees of grief if you are injured, or if you die, in the process. Both of which are likely outcomes. This is not the signature of recreation. This is the signature of pathology, marked by a lack of empathy -- and good sense. Also, mountain climbing is not "rock climbing", which, at least in some of its incarnations, can be a completely safe sport, tethered quite securely while one climbs a carefully designed surface, reducing risk to near zero. You're trying to move the goalposts here. I need only remind you that you were the one that stuck them in the ground. We're talking about mounting climbing.
Yes, most people swallow pop culture nonsense -- such as assuming mountain climbing is "just fine" -- without thinking. I don't. I read what you wrote, thought about it, found it lacking, and expressed my opinion. It doesn't concern me in the least that no one else called you to task over this. It would be interesting if your rebut showed me that I was wrongheaded in my thinking; but saying that I'm not one of the crowd doesn't do that. Your resistance to trying to find words to express what you actually meant tells me something too. :)
We seem to have a fundamental disagreement.
You value the master's work because it was a "breakthrough."
I don't. I value it because it is good.
It was a terrible metaphor; I showed you why. Basically you (quoting your source) tried to express the value of a creative exercise by comparing it with one of either pragmatic means or abject stupidity -- it is neither.
You can do better.
Before you start, I should point out that a robot composing a symphony in no way precludes *you* from doing so. Robots can compose all they want, no one will be impressed unless the result is impressive.
I assume the mountain climbing is a symptom of a massive personality defect, coupled with a not-too-bright person.
That entirely misses the point. If the system provides what you need, and you can get what you want, your premise falls apart. Given the free time, no robot or AI can enjoy skin diving for you, or the experience of painting, or dancing, etc. The idea that without jobs in an environment of plenty we are morose, directionless drones is simply bankrupt.
Ah, but what you're missing here is that your fantasy is not my fantasy, and therefore, it's still "Future Guy."
Future Guy notes your failure to defend this "buying" concept, and concludes that this "buying" idea has no intrinsic value; probably just a relic of the bad old days, when there wasn't enough stuff for everyone.
Cheers!
I don't see the likely outcome as coming even close to your description. Time, however, will tell.
Are you referring to the present epidemic of human trafficking hysteria? Because that's solidly established as almost entirely utter nonsense. Slavery is done; and if you try to enslave an AI, I rather expect you'd get what you deserve: nothing.
I'm not talking about a transition period here. I'm talking about an actual environment of plenty. Arguing today's economic situation to justify how a radically different future economic situation would work is kind of fruitless, don't you think?
The extremes are the least likely outcomes. Further, options we have failed to consider repeatedly turn out to be pivotal, *particularly* in the area of technology.
Anything of note? Why should I care if you think my accomplishments are "of note"? What I desire is happiness. That means good company, comfort, recreation, good and enjoyable nutrition, as little rote labor as possible, and time to enjoy myself doing such things as having sex, swimming, playing music, listening to music, learning about the world and the universe, hanging with my cat... it's not about accomplishment at all. In fact, that strikes me as a pathology brought about by the idea that it's an "achievement" to get your face on television. If you live for a dose of approval from outside sources, first of all, you're likely to find that fountain quite dry, and second, you won't be happy in *any* kind of society, because no one really gives a hoot about you -- or me, etc. :)
Oh, we haven't forgotten it. There's a pretty good undercurrent of "let's get all our apples out of one basket" going on already, and we're still working, albeit slowly, on getting into space. The only question is, will we manage to do that in time?
Future guy sez: What is this "buying" thing you mention? When I want a widget, I order one, and it is delivered. Consequently, I have been content. But I am curious about this "buying" thing you mention. Is it a way to improve a product? Does it improve a product's distribution? Does it educate people? Please, enlighten me.
Well, for one, because this implies huge social friction, and humans have a well deserved reputation for responding to huge social friction with destructive means.
But look at it another way: If you have a huge field of corn, and two people, where's the need for either of you to sell corn to the other? If there's plenty, there's no reason for friction, nor any economic reason to require an exchange of wealth or surrogates for wealth (money.)
Service machines -- not AI mind you, but task oriented non-intelligent robotics -- can serve AI as well as us. No need for friction; no need to even consider "not giving" to one or the other. They'll create the plenty -- not the AI, and not us. That's why it'll work.
Not sure that's the case, even today. After all, an algorithm that was designed to produce one of the master's symphonies exactly would meet your metric. Modifying it to make changes in the same style, also probably easily within our current means; you'd get a very similar, but different, result, likely very high quality indeed.
And I'm fairly confident that in the future, an actual AI will undertake creating a wholly new symphony and do very well. :)
Or as stupid; you see, it's all about the POV you approach it from. Ask me to go mountain climbing for no purpose other than to get to the top? I'd just laugh at you. Tell me you went mountain climbing? I'd either wander directly on to some other subject, or perhaps investigate (recreationally) why you feel it necessary to risk your family and friends losing you over an "accomplishment" that has no actual value to anyone. The world is not improved by your climb, no one is saved, and worst case, you may inspire some other fool to risk their life in a useless fashion similar or identical to yours.
Now, if there's something to be gained -- say, establishing a colony on mars, or discovery of new lands a la the old oceanic explorers -- I'm up for considerable risk. But bragging rights for having done a tough, risky climb to no worthy purpose? Pffft.
I am fairly sure we're going to be looking at two very different classes of machine: One, the AI, isn't going to be "owned" by anyone other than itself, just as you aren't owned by anyone. It may, or may not, have some obligations, but ownership of an intelligent being... probably not going to happen again. I hope.
Two, non-intelligent worker robots that have enough compute power to deal with cleaning your house, taking out the trash, mowing the lawn, that sort of thing, but not an original thought anywhere to be seen. I expect those to be in service to both humans and intelligent machines.
Well, we're not even close to AI yet, nor have service machines reached even a fraction of their potential. Lots of time remains for the economic system(s) to mutate such that human labor is not directly coupled to our ability to survive. I fully expect this to happen; we can see it already in smaller ways, as costs drop precipitously for what used to be high expense items and services. For instance, I have a Roomba, and it was *far* less expensive than hiring someone to vacuum. So far, the only after-purchase expense has been a minuscule amount of electricity. That's the nature of service robotics. Smart thermostats, lawn mowers, even things as simple as toasters remove our various concerns and replace them with well accomplished tasks. Presuming nothing catastrophic happens, there's every reason to think this trend will accelerate and grow -- I expect few would turn down economically feasible replacements for drudge work. And of course, in a system of plenty, free equates directly to economically feasible.
From TFS:
Assumes facts not in evidence. Labor produces money, and money is (presently) the key to a person's identity and dignity from society's point of view. That doesn't mean that your self image is dependent upon money (though it may be), just that where you can go, how well you are accepted, what you can own is all predicated upon labor and therefore earnings. If money is not a factor in your quality of life, as would be the case in a system characterized by "more than enough for all at all times, no labor required" then neither should money be a surrogate for your self-image. There's also a difference not addressed by the simple term "labor": The implication is that you're working for someone else. In an economy of plenty, you can work -- or play, for that matter -- for yourself.
For instance, I already work at home, having essentially retired, presently producing software for the amateur radio community (software defined radio stuff.) I don't charge for it, I give it away, getting my jollies, as it were, from the idea that 8000 or so people are using my software on a more or less regular basis, and also from using it myself, to be honest. My self image, I assure you, is just fine. Likewise, I take a lot of photographs, and I post them at full resolution and welcome anyone who wants to use them, print them, whatever. Doesn't compromise my dignity; doesn't erode my self-image. Finally, I write, and post my opinions and etc. for anyone who wants to read them; I enjoy responding to those who take the time to comment and again, perfectly happy to pursue this without monetary compensation.
All in all, I'd say that if people are not expected to work for others, then they will not suffer negative feelings about themselves if they do not, in fact, work for others. Instead, they can put that effort into improving their own lives and that of their friends and families. I'm rather certain that such undertakings will be quite good for one's self-image, dignity, and social status.
I've been avoiding buying a Nest because of reports of sensitivity to RFI, RF, and ESD, and reports of really unfriendly failure modes: failure to heat when really cold; failure to shut off heating when away; these seem very serious to me. I really like the idea, but it seems the execution might leave a bit to be desired as yet.
I don't put ultimate faith in Amazon reviewers by any means (tho I r one, lol), but this is worth looking over
"mmm" ... "yes, mmmmm!"
"Eeeeek!" ... "Wassamatta???"
GREY GOO!
You're confused. Betas are small tropicals. Gsharks would eat betas. Not the other way around.
No need to thank me, I'm here to help.
I am not a homosexual necrophiliac, said Tom, in dead earnest.
Thanks, try the veal.
Nano condoms?