The *current* reality is that if the economy doesn't roll, then the government can't roll either, and then the jobless become a lot more of a problem than they are now.
Only in the context where scarcity has been eliminated by a force other than constant human effort does the possibility arise for a significantly jobless population stand as a reasonable condition.
That's certainly one obvious possibility, yes. Or, it might be a good thing if you like that sort of thing, but in no way a requirement, any more than any other optional choice in life or lifestyle is. Or, it might be punishment. Or something else no one has thought of yet.
If you can get everything you need in the material sense, you might prefer, for instance, to spend your time diving off Maui, enjoying fine dining, playing an instrument, etc., ad infinitum. Or, if you're sort of perverse, maybe you'd like to work behind the counter at McDonald's and call it "good"?
Speaking from a US centric POV, we need to enter a period of protectionism. Otherwise, what remains of our economy will follow the rest down the drain, and we will instead enter a truly ugly period of deep need for the general population.
The answer isn't to continue to marginalize our workers; the answer is to serve people's needs from within our own resource base, both material and labor.
Until or unless automation can provide an environment of zero scarcity, the imbalance between labor costs elsewhere and here will continue to erode the standard of living and job opportunities for the workforce.
The jobs of the future may be done by robots, but they'll need people to build and maintain those robots.
Unlikely, except as an interim stage. Even without AI, you can have general assembly and repair robots that are competent to build and repair, respectively, the same models as they are, as well as other models. With AI, all need for people in manufacture and repair is gone, and further, the robots can be built to be a lot more effective -- more arms, special effectors, built-in diagnostic tools, etc.
We're less than 100 years into computing systems, even less than that in the type of code required here. Significant changes are likely still in front of us, even in the relatively short term.
Yep. When AI arrives, very few jobs (other than things like ambassador to AI or positions in Luddite cults) are likely to require a human. Whether AI will see fit to participate in our job market is not intuitively obvious, though. Still, with AI in place, lower level robotics should be quite sophisticated.
I've always thought that the current presumption that a job is required and inherently a good thing was an artifact of scarcity of labor. Remove the latter, and the former may well radically change.
Well, another way to look at this is that the human body contains 3 GJ of constrained energy, and that if you released that energy -- like an atom bomb -- rather than trying to match energy for energy, you'd *get* 3 GJ, which you would then have to put somewhere, or you'd be vaporized along with it.
Remember: A good sized atom or fusion bomb contains (and will release) more than 3GJ of energy, but it takes one hell of a lot less than 3 GJ as a trigger to let that energy free.
And given that there are at least those two ways to approach bounded energy release, odds are reasonable that there are others, as well. Yes, yes, fissionables sort of *like* to be let free, but that's kind of the point. Perhaps there are other mechanisms.
And therefore, I'm just going to go with "Phasers don't have to deliver 3 GJ to vaporize a Klingon."
No. You're projecting your own ideas onto others in order to come up with an answer you like. The history of humanity is filled with those who went away from others on purpose, with motivations all over the cognitive map.
Nobody cares about this because Its relative speed that kills.
Wait, what? the ONLY reason I care about the speed display on my GPS is because of the direct relationship it has to the vehicle, the police, fines, and insurance rates. Speed doesn't kill, running into people and things does (and you certainly don't have to be going very fast, either.) The more that GPS display out-accurates the cop's radar, the better I like it. And truly, that's it. That's the first consideration, the central one, and the last one, and there are no others. So yes, it matters if SOG is inaccurate, and no, it isn't because some particular speed is particularly dangerous. Other than to my wallet.
o older, sicker technical people are treated as unemployable and fireable if already in place
o arbitrary degree requirements place artificial barriers between employment and many technical people
o HR departments operate by rote and bean-counting, not "find a great employee"
o congress sets the immigration rules for imported tech labor
o congress is wholly corrupt and beholden to corporate direction via funding pressures
If you want to be truly successful, you'd better cultivate some creativity and start your own thing. The employment situation is horrible and constantly getting worse, with no end in sight. And if anyone thinks an artificially inflated number of STEM grads is going to do anything to alleviate any of this, they're out of their minds. The slope is only getting steeper.
Drop from 22,000 miles: terminal velocity will be different than if you drop from 1 mile. So will several other things, like the temperature of the object, and the cost of the experiment.:)
There's something of a difference between "hey, look, some guy in a neat car" and "John Q. Private is currently at mile marker 23 on highway 2, proceeding at 65 mph in an easterly direction, with 100 miles of range remaining."
Well, terminal velocity will depend on two factors: The ultimate wind resistance of its tumbling chassis, and how high it is above the ground when you drop it.
There are indeed shades of grey. But a constitutional republic is not a "shade" of a democratic system. Majority rule is two retarded wolves and an intelligent sheep voting on what's for dinner. A constitutional republic is someone else looking at all three, consulting a set of hard limits neither the sheep or wolves have any direct control over, and making sure that dinner consists of bread and water.
Slashdot Mirror
The *current* reality is that if the economy doesn't roll, then the government can't roll either, and then the jobless become a lot more of a problem than they are now.
Only in the context where scarcity has been eliminated by a force other than constant human effort does the possibility arise for a significantly jobless population stand as a reasonable condition.
That's certainly one obvious possibility, yes. Or, it might be a good thing if you like that sort of thing, but in no way a requirement, any more than any other optional choice in life or lifestyle is. Or, it might be punishment. Or something else no one has thought of yet.
If you can get everything you need in the material sense, you might prefer, for instance, to spend your time diving off Maui, enjoying fine dining, playing an instrument, etc., ad infinitum. Or, if you're sort of perverse, maybe you'd like to work behind the counter at McDonald's and call it "good"?
Speaking from a US centric POV, we need to enter a period of protectionism. Otherwise, what remains of our economy will follow the rest down the drain, and we will instead enter a truly ugly period of deep need for the general population.
The answer isn't to continue to marginalize our workers; the answer is to serve people's needs from within our own resource base, both material and labor.
Until or unless automation can provide an environment of zero scarcity, the imbalance between labor costs elsewhere and here will continue to erode the standard of living and job opportunities for the workforce.
Unlikely, except as an interim stage. Even without AI, you can have general assembly and repair robots that are competent to build and repair, respectively, the same models as they are, as well as other models. With AI, all need for people in manufacture and repair is gone, and further, the robots can be built to be a lot more effective -- more arms, special effectors, built-in diagnostic tools, etc.
We're less than 100 years into computing systems, even less than that in the type of code required here. Significant changes are likely still in front of us, even in the relatively short term.
Yep. When AI arrives, very few jobs (other than things like ambassador to AI or positions in Luddite cults) are likely to require a human. Whether AI will see fit to participate in our job market is not intuitively obvious, though. Still, with AI in place, lower level robotics should be quite sophisticated.
I've always thought that the current presumption that a job is required and inherently a good thing was an artifact of scarcity of labor. Remove the latter, and the former may well radically change.
Well, another way to look at this is that the human body contains 3 GJ of constrained energy, and that if you released that energy -- like an atom bomb -- rather than trying to match energy for energy, you'd *get* 3 GJ, which you would then have to put somewhere, or you'd be vaporized along with it.
Remember: A good sized atom or fusion bomb contains (and will release) more than 3GJ of energy, but it takes one hell of a lot less than 3 GJ as a trigger to let that energy free.
And given that there are at least those two ways to approach bounded energy release, odds are reasonable that there are others, as well. Yes, yes, fissionables sort of *like* to be let free, but that's kind of the point. Perhaps there are other mechanisms.
And therefore, I'm just going to go with "Phasers don't have to deliver 3 GJ to vaporize a Klingon."
So, history's not your strong point, then.
I believe you misspelled "religion" there.
No need to thank me.
No. You're projecting your own ideas onto others in order to come up with an answer you like. The history of humanity is filled with those who went away from others on purpose, with motivations all over the cognitive map.
The government is "the hackers"
Wait, what? the ONLY reason I care about the speed display on my GPS is because of the direct relationship it has to the vehicle, the police, fines, and insurance rates. Speed doesn't kill, running into people and things does (and you certainly don't have to be going very fast, either.) The more that GPS display out-accurates the cop's radar, the better I like it. And truly, that's it. That's the first consideration, the central one, and the last one, and there are no others. So yes, it matters if SOG is inaccurate, and no, it isn't because some particular speed is particularly dangerous. Other than to my wallet.
o the government lies
o corporations lie
o hiring practices favor imported, low-cost labor
o older, sicker technical people are treated as unemployable and fireable if already in place
o arbitrary degree requirements place artificial barriers between employment and many technical people
o HR departments operate by rote and bean-counting, not "find a great employee"
o congress sets the immigration rules for imported tech labor
o congress is wholly corrupt and beholden to corporate direction via funding pressures
If you want to be truly successful, you'd better cultivate some creativity and start your own thing. The employment situation is horrible and constantly getting worse, with no end in sight. And if anyone thinks an artificially inflated number of STEM grads is going to do anything to alleviate any of this, they're out of their minds. The slope is only getting steeper.
Drop from 22,000 miles: terminal velocity will be different than if you drop from 1 mile. So will several other things, like the temperature of the object, and the cost of the experiment. :)
yes, wasn't talking about python. Was talking about perl.
perl. Go ahead, show me a reasonable 2d (or more) array in perl, lol. I don't think you can do it.
in python, there's nothing to it, trivial to do and trivial to access. Not in perl, or at least, it hasn't been.
it's trivial in python. It's an incredible hoop jump in perl.
There's something of a difference between "hey, look, some guy in a neat car" and "John Q. Private is currently at mile marker 23 on highway 2, proceeding at 65 mph in an easterly direction, with 100 miles of range remaining."
Well, terminal velocity will depend on two factors: The ultimate wind resistance of its tumbling chassis, and how high it is above the ground when you drop it.
I believe the Japanese lean towards octopi.
How about being unable to create a 2D array without jumping through hoops (backwards, on fire, and without your pants)?
Luckily, both of your opinions on whitespace were not, and are not, either significant or involved in Python's design.
And that's why you two don't have to be dead to me. :)
Plus, you can keep working with whatever it is that you DO like. Imagine that!
That way, nobody's dinner.
What is "automatic breaking", an advanced form of planned obsolescence?
"braking", FFS.
I have a voice-input Garmin GPS. If I tell it to "drive to destination" it'l likely to tell me there is no nation called "Destin"
Lots of problems to solve yet. :)
There are indeed shades of grey. But a constitutional republic is not a "shade" of a democratic system. Majority rule is two retarded wolves and an intelligent sheep voting on what's for dinner. A constitutional republic is someone else looking at all three, consulting a set of hard limits neither the sheep or wolves have any direct control over, and making sure that dinner consists of bread and water.