Not so terrible considering Haskell et al. has been around quite a while now (since 1990), though admittedly, GPGPU isn't nearly as old. Still, I would expect to see at least one I knew. Only barely heard of Jabber.
Can you give me the most well known app/apps that have been programmed with a functional language? As far as I know, they still go the imperative route.
Hi again. I'm not sure if I can really fault your logic there. Though I think generally it has a pessimistic view of human nature (some countries can be that bad, but many aren't). I guess you might say "absolute power corrupts completely", though I still can't see it getting that bad.
In any case, I think the move towards AI will much more of a mundane slow incremental increase, and maybe far, far into the future will we get the kind of intelligence which could even make your scenario theoretically possible.
Whenever I see a beginner's guide to quantum theory, I always invariably see a phrase similar to:
"Stranger still, the electron doesn't even have properties like position and momentum until an observer measures them. "
And every time, I always think "define 'observe'", because that word is incredibly fluffy, vague as well as being immensely irritating. If a bat miles away happens to look in that direction with nothing in the way, is that counted as an observation? Are there a trillion different ways to observe it, and have they all been tried out to see the phenomenon stands? None, I repeat NONE of the articles I have ever read actually even remotely begins to touch upon that subject.
Obviously I would put it more tactfully than that if one really that were upset. But the basic point still stands.
My point was the scenario is very different to the one in the story because the motive behind them is totally different. The motive in the story is morbid utility at best, and greed at worst. The story you portrayed would be there was pure hate involved.
Yes, you would be upset, but not for the reasons you think you would.
Always look at the motive. They must want to hate you to do something like that, and that's actually what you are really picking up. The action itself is of no consequence, for good or for bad.
[quote]It's about the living; and respect; doofus.[/quote] Look at the motive. There's a world of difference between those two things. One is to try and annoy the relatives of the dead person. I'll leave you to guess which of the two actions comes under that category.
It'd be amazing how much more trivial something like this would be if we had a theoretically perfectly rigid/strong material that could withstand near-infinite forces, and was super cheap to produce.
That and unlimited energy such as fusion would propel us into a real space age. Sigh...
Well get the hard disks from difference sources. The more you get, the closer the chance of non-recovery approaches 0. If you want a one in a 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance you can always get another couple of HDs. If even that is too risky, add another couple of HDs to make it another million times less risky.
Okay, even assuming a government doesn't intervene and control the situation to most people's benefit (which to me is pretty unlikely), all it would take is for some of the 'poor' to get some of these mass manufactured robots and start using it for their own purposes. Hence they won't be poor anymore. Even obtaining one particularly specialized robot will mean it will be able to recreate most of the others.
And yes, the robots will eventually be cheap, because prices drop like a stone (even the big megacorps will want to buy thousands, millions, or even billions of robots at a decent price). Hence the robots will be serving everyone.
Welcome to the year 2070! We hope you can adjust quickly to your environment. People are generally happier in this age, so I don't think you'll be lonely for long!
You mention the government siding with the rich company/s, but if voting is counted by the actual quantity of people, then a government party that benefits the majority will rule instead. Yes, the government could be really, really corrupt at that point, but I doubt that will be the case in all, or even most countries, especially first world ones.
But let's assume that won't be the case. Even then, rich greedy people/companies in that scenario (and potentially the governments that support them in the worst case) will not want chaos and anarchy amongst the populace. They will be given small slices of the pie (which are actually big, because efficiency and productivity will be just so incredibly high) just to keep the peace, and so the mega-rich can still enjoy their own lives.
He doesn't just mean humanoid robots, but specialist robots which resemble factory robots in their variety of shape and function, but which work outside factories in offices, fields, and elsewhere.
You're right about it being a sort of welfare (with the only difference being that everybody gets it, hence his distinction). However, that's no bad thing, and is a fine solution to the problem.
And there's certainly no special quasi-spiritualist/karma rule that says: "Every job that lost to a robot/computer, a new job will be created". We can aim instead for a future where people become artists, composers, and have plenty of leisure time to have hobbys socialize etc., and let the robots subsidize it all by doing the boring work.
Hmm, a couple of things which can stop that horror story living out:
1: Government intervention. The people will want the government to do something about the sad state of affairs you speak of. If it doesn't, they will get voted off. Ultimately, *everyone* in theory should get a fixed payment on top of what they earning. So nobody will be pennyless.
2: Because the rich conglomerate of a company is now so efficient, they can offer their food, products and services at stupidly low prices too (next to nothing). So that easily counterbalances the lack of income that people will generally get.
Yes, a bit like Wikipedia. No use to anyone, that.
Seriously, in the robotic future, if everyone is given a basic wage whether they work or not, and robots provide all our needs, then maybe we can 'all get along' after all. Money will become less and less important, and yet we will be richer than ever before.
In the end, everything will become much cheaper, and ultimately free. It will probably converge towards Star Trek's vision of zero money. Or at least a system where money isn't required for most every day things.
I would agree. I think the current democratic/capitalist system works well now to *get* to that point, but when we're there, then at least a more substantial 'social security' type system would be beneficial to the mass majority of people who don't work.
Slashdot Mirror
Is 1Thz the best we can hope to get then?
Not so terrible considering Haskell et al. has been around quite a while now (since 1990), though admittedly, GPGPU isn't nearly as old. Still, I would expect to see at least one I knew. Only barely heard of Jabber.
Can you give me the most well known app/apps that have been programmed with a functional language? As far as I know, they still go the imperative route.
Hi again. I'm not sure if I can really fault your logic there. Though I think generally it has a pessimistic view of human nature (some countries can be that bad, but many aren't). I guess you might say "absolute power corrupts completely", though I still can't see it getting that bad.
In any case, I think the move towards AI will much more of a mundane slow incremental increase, and maybe far, far into the future will we get the kind of intelligence which could even make your scenario theoretically possible.
Okay, rant time.
Whenever I see a beginner's guide to quantum theory, I always invariably see a phrase similar to:
"Stranger still, the electron doesn't even have properties like position and momentum until an observer measures them. "
And every time, I always think "define 'observe'", because that word is incredibly fluffy, vague as well as being immensely irritating. If a bat miles away happens to look in that direction with nothing in the way, is that counted as an observation? Are there a trillion different ways to observe it, and have they all been tried out to see the phenomenon stands? None, I repeat NONE of the articles I have ever read actually even remotely begins to touch upon that subject.
If it was in the parent's presence though, it would be awfully hard to imagine the doctor wasn't doing it to irritate them.
Let's all just have hands-free phoning already. Is it really that hard to implement? Taxis have them at least.
Obviously I would put it more tactfully than that if one really that were upset. But the basic point still stands.
My point was the scenario is very different to the one in the story because the motive behind them is totally different. The motive in the story is morbid utility at best, and greed at worst. The story you portrayed would be there was pure hate involved.
What are Slashdot's feelings on net neutrality generally? It seems as if it's something we should care about, but most here don't seem to mind.
If nothing else, it could increase complexity in a system that should stay simply IMHO.
Yes, you would be upset, but not for the reasons you think you would.
Always look at the motive. They must want to hate you to do something like that, and that's actually what you are really picking up. The action itself is of no consequence, for good or for bad.
[quote]It's about the living; and respect; doofus.[/quote]
Look at the motive. There's a world of difference between those two things. One is to try and annoy the relatives of the dead person. I'll leave you to guess which of the two actions comes under that category.
I doubt you really needed to put 'genuine question here' in that. Good question anyway, and pretty much what I was thinking.
It'd be amazing how much more trivial something like this would be if we had a theoretically perfectly rigid/strong material that could withstand near-infinite forces, and was super cheap to produce.
That and unlimited energy such as fusion would propel us into a real space age. Sigh...
Your sig is pretty funny when you know the background behind it: http://www.gearfuse.com/the-japanese-agriculture-ministry-is-not-in-charge-of-gundam/
Well get the hard disks from difference sources. The more you get, the closer the chance of non-recovery approaches 0. If you want a one in a 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance you can always get another couple of HDs. If even that is too risky, add another couple of HDs to make it another million times less risky.
Three or four standard hard disk backups is the equivalent to the cube you speak of, but a heck of a lot cheaper.
Okay, even assuming a government doesn't intervene and control the situation to most people's benefit (which to me is pretty unlikely), all it would take is for some of the 'poor' to get some of these mass manufactured robots and start using it for their own purposes. Hence they won't be poor anymore. Even obtaining one particularly specialized robot will mean it will be able to recreate most of the others.
And yes, the robots will eventually be cheap, because prices drop like a stone (even the big megacorps will want to buy thousands, millions, or even billions of robots at a decent price). Hence the robots will be serving everyone.
Welcome to the year 2070! We hope you can adjust quickly to your environment. People are generally happier in this age, so I don't think you'll be lonely for long!
That's one good reason why I never use the users/documents directory.
I always make my own giant folder, and categorize myself. Everything is inside it, everything. It makes backup far less of a headache too.
You mention the government siding with the rich company/s, but if voting is counted by the actual quantity of people, then a government party that benefits the majority will rule instead. Yes, the government could be really, really corrupt at that point, but I doubt that will be the case in all, or even most countries, especially first world ones.
But let's assume that won't be the case. Even then, rich greedy people/companies in that scenario (and potentially the governments that support them in the worst case) will not want chaos and anarchy amongst the populace. They will be given small slices of the pie (which are actually big, because efficiency and productivity will be just so incredibly high) just to keep the peace, and so the mega-rich can still enjoy their own lives.
He doesn't just mean humanoid robots, but specialist robots which resemble factory robots in their variety of shape and function, but which work outside factories in offices, fields, and elsewhere.
You're right about it being a sort of welfare (with the only difference being that everybody gets it, hence his distinction). However, that's no bad thing, and is a fine solution to the problem.
And there's certainly no special quasi-spiritualist/karma rule that says: "Every job that lost to a robot/computer, a new job will be created". We can aim instead for a future where people become artists, composers, and have plenty of leisure time to have hobbys socialize etc., and let the robots subsidize it all by doing the boring work.
Hmm, a couple of things which can stop that horror story living out:
1: Government intervention. The people will want the government to do something about the sad state of affairs you speak of. If it doesn't, they will get voted off. Ultimately, *everyone* in theory should get a fixed payment on top of what they earning. So nobody will be pennyless.
2: Because the rich conglomerate of a company is now so efficient, they can offer their food, products and services at stupidly low prices too (next to nothing). So that easily counterbalances the lack of income that people will generally get.
Yes, a bit like Wikipedia. No use to anyone, that.
Seriously, in the robotic future, if everyone is given a basic wage whether they work or not, and robots provide all our needs, then maybe we can 'all get along' after all. Money will become less and less important, and yet we will be richer than ever before.
Well yeah, that's the tip of the iceberg.
In the end, everything will become much cheaper, and ultimately free. It will probably converge towards Star Trek's vision of zero money. Or at least a system where money isn't required for most every day things.
I would agree. I think the current democratic/capitalist system works well now to *get* to that point, but when we're there, then at least a more substantial 'social security' type system would be beneficial to the mass majority of people who don't work.