What's the economy of the western world going to look like if the only thing we need is material for 3D printers, power, land, food and water?
A lot like the U.S. economy now. Manufacturing is reduced to a niche role, making things whose production is hard to automate. Commodities are still produced in large volume by few laborers using lots of automation. Most economic activity will be in services, just like now (but more so). The biggest change will be that all the retail strip malls will close down like the textile and steel mills did in the 1970's and 1980's. Except grocery stores, of course, and boutiques carrying hard-to-replicate items.
Will provision of the un-replicable become the job of the state?
There's no reason to assume that it will. There will still be a money economy used for the exchange of services, energy, raw materials, and un-replicable items.
Unfortunately there are few viable alternatives to Netflix streaming at this time. Hulu has commercials -- a deal breaker for me. Amazon Prime takes extreme inconvenience to whole new levels. I tried it with my Roku box -- they don't even alphabetize the titles in their catalog! I couldn't believe it. Blockbuster has DVD-by-mail service now their streaming service is immature, and Blockbuster is pricey.
It's more like, "Sorry we screwed you over, but our competitors haven't got their acts together, so we won't, either. Expect more screw-over in the future."
So, a 60% price increase, followed by a huge downgrade in the quality of the user experience? This is quite a one-two punch to the customer. Ouch, indeed.
There's been research showing parrots' use of words can be a good deal more sophisticated than Pavolvian conditioning: check out Alex the research parrot. I don't claim this rises to the level of true language as humans use it, but neither do I think it's appropriate to dismiss it as simple stimulus/response.
The interesting thing about this is that anyone can see book rentals are going to cut into book sales. It's doubtful that people will read more simply because a rental service is available -- for me and most people I know the limiting factors on the amount they read are time, energy, and interest, not the cost of books. Therefore Amazon could be viewed as undercutting its own book-sales business with this service, providing rentals of books to their most active customers who would normally buy them. Why? I can only speculate, but surely this is a bold and disruptive move in the publishing business.
As it is, I got them from the VA (The biggest buyer of hearing aids in the USA.) at taxpayer expense
Fixed that for you. But, since you are a veteran, I as a taxpayer am more than happy to help pay for your medical expenses. You did your part, I'll do mine, just please let's not take one another for granted. Thanks.
So let me get this straight: if the company fails to meet the guidelines, and the data leaks, consumers can sue. Can't they already? I fail to see how the consumer gains anything from this. And as others have pointed out, if a company does meet these proposed federal guidelines, and the data still leaks, it sounds like they'd be indemnified.
All I see coming out of this is another costly, compliance-oriented set of regulations that place a burden on companies and at the same time deny citizens their right to hold data stewards accountable through the courts. Sounds like a lose-lose to me.
A compliance-based checklist, "thou shalt do X" has all sorts of problems that basically boil down to putting incentives on bad security. Frankly I think mandatory disclosure of data breaches is more effective, because that way the company is held accountable no matter how the breach occurred.
If you think Germany is more classless than America, I doubt you've been there. I've got one word for you: gastarbeiter. In Germany, the second-class citizens aren't even citizens.
You're completely out of touch with reality if you think Obama has a rags to riches story. He's just like every other politician, you suck at advocating for the Devil.
While it's true Obama's mom had a Ph.D., if you think you need to be rich to get through a Ph.D program, you're the one who's out of touch with reality.
Just to play devil's advocate here, in America workers have the opportunity to buy shares in their employers' stock. Middle-class workers even have the means to do so. And if there is a society that is closer to being classless than 21st-century America, I'd like to hear about it. Our head of state is the son of a hippie schoolteacher and a foreign student, who lived for several years in a shack with a dirt floor.
So yeah, the worker's utopia has never really come to be, I'll grant you. I none the less suggest that we are closer to it today than one might think.
If technology fails to continue its trend of being able to do more with less and if we keep breeding like rabbits
Actually, it is quite possible that we will stop breeding like rabbits. There is a strong inverse correlation between income and birth rate. As the "developing" world slowly but surely rises out of poverty, global population levels will eventually stabilize. They might even go down. I am not an expert on this but one interesting source of data is www.gapminder.org. Their basic thesis is that the gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots" is actually narrowing.
At first I was going to say, "how do you figure?" but then I realized you are right: there are some who are too young to be scheduled for vaccination, and some who are too poor to have access to the vaccine, and there may be others who would want to be vaccinated but can't be for medical reasons. So yes, the pool of unvaccinated people is larger than the pool who refuse the vaccine based on truthiness.
So, it's unjust that I pay for the energy I use now, and pay taxes to subsidize some of what it takes to develope, transport, and secure it?
No, it's unjust that you can get all the energy you want/can pay for, whereas someone in sub-Saharan Africa pays twice as much for energy as you do in absolute terms, and many times more relative to his/her income, and lacks a 100% reliable energy source at any price.
What I'm saying is that access is not the same as entitlement, and when you recast a statement about access as a statement about entitlement, you're being either disingenuous or obtuse.
In order to get a reactor to the moon you have to launch it on a rocket, and rockets do not have a really great safety record. The risk/benefit trade-off of launching nuclear fuel through our atmosphere does not seem to be worth it, not when solar energy on the Moon is a readily available alternative.
Else investigations become a de facto payment without trial and that's not what happens in a democracy.
What happens in a democracy is what the people want to happen. Remember that Socrates was executed by a democracy. Democracy is a necessary condition for justice, not a sufficient one. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and all that.
Running an open Wi-Fi hotspot, or Tor exit node, would make you both more likely to be investigated, and less likely to be convicted, of any cyber crimes
Unfortunately there is a lot the authorities can do under the name of "investigation" to harass, abuse, intimidate, and even detain you. Seizing computers is bad enough but if they really want to play hardball they can haul you in "for questioning"... on a daily basis... and pick you up at inconvenient times like when you're at the office or in the middle of the night. So really being investigated is the thing you don't want, because it can make your life hell and in the end the cops can just smile and say "No charges. Have a nice day, citizen."
More like the post-idea media
on
The Post-Idea World
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
TFA to me says more about the media failing their role as societal and intellectual catalysts, than about a shortage of ideas as such. There are big ideas out there, you just don't hear about them from the media.
At the risk of opening up a political flame war, even the political parties here in the U.S. have big ideas built into their platforms. What level of service and what level of taxation do we really want from our government? How do we distribute the costs of government? Why is illegal immigration a problem and how do we address it? What are the costs of dealing with global warming, and what are the costs of not dealing with it?
It's just that no one is having an intelligent discussion about these topics. They prefer to stake out a position on blind faith and then denounce everyone who disagrees. Seems to me more like a lack of discussion than a shortage of societal challenges or of ideas to deal with those challenges.
The suggestion to "Follow Your Bliss" only works in an economy that's not run by sociopaths.
The suggestion to "follow your bliss" only works if you are willing to take responsibility for the challenges and risks that entails. I am sorry you are having a hard time finding a job but dude, your attitude is seriously backward. Instead of figuring out what your competitive advantage is and playing to your strengths, you whine about the unfairness of the job market. What you really sound like is someone who has given up.
That is fine, you're entitled to give up if you find the business is not for you. But at least you should be moving on to something that's better for you, not still applying for jobs in a field where you don't believe in your own potential for success.
So my advice to the original poster is if stories like this scare you, then stay the hell away from programming. They don't bother me a bit: I'm 41 years old and more employable than I've ever been before.
Slashdot Mirror
The concern is not robot vs. robot war, it's robot vs. human-without-a-robot war.
A lot like the U.S. economy now. Manufacturing is reduced to a niche role, making things whose production is hard to automate. Commodities are still produced in large volume by few laborers using lots of automation. Most economic activity will be in services, just like now (but more so). The biggest change will be that all the retail strip malls will close down like the textile and steel mills did in the 1970's and 1980's. Except grocery stores, of course, and boutiques carrying hard-to-replicate items.
There's no reason to assume that it will. There will still be a money economy used for the exchange of services, energy, raw materials, and un-replicable items.
Unfortunately there are few viable alternatives to Netflix streaming at this time. Hulu has commercials -- a deal breaker for me. Amazon Prime takes extreme inconvenience to whole new levels. I tried it with my Roku box -- they don't even alphabetize the titles in their catalog! I couldn't believe it. Blockbuster has DVD-by-mail service now their streaming service is immature, and Blockbuster is pricey.
It's more like, "Sorry we screwed you over, but our competitors haven't got their acts together, so we won't, either. Expect more screw-over in the future."
So, a 60% price increase, followed by a huge downgrade in the quality of the user experience? This is quite a one-two punch to the customer. Ouch, indeed.
There's been research showing parrots' use of words can be a good deal more sophisticated than Pavolvian conditioning: check out Alex the research parrot. I don't claim this rises to the level of true language as humans use it, but neither do I think it's appropriate to dismiss it as simple stimulus/response.
The interesting thing about this is that anyone can see book rentals are going to cut into book sales. It's doubtful that people will read more simply because a rental service is available -- for me and most people I know the limiting factors on the amount they read are time, energy, and interest, not the cost of books. Therefore Amazon could be viewed as undercutting its own book-sales business with this service, providing rentals of books to their most active customers who would normally buy them. Why? I can only speculate, but surely this is a bold and disruptive move in the publishing business.
Fixed that for you. But, since you are a veteran, I as a taxpayer am more than happy to help pay for your medical expenses. You did your part, I'll do mine, just please let's not take one another for granted. Thanks.
So let me get this straight: if the company fails to meet the guidelines, and the data leaks, consumers can sue. Can't they already? I fail to see how the consumer gains anything from this. And as others have pointed out, if a company does meet these proposed federal guidelines, and the data still leaks, it sounds like they'd be indemnified.
All I see coming out of this is another costly, compliance-oriented set of regulations that place a burden on companies and at the same time deny citizens their right to hold data stewards accountable through the courts. Sounds like a lose-lose to me.
A compliance-based checklist, "thou shalt do X" has all sorts of problems that basically boil down to putting incentives on bad security. Frankly I think mandatory disclosure of data breaches is more effective, because that way the company is held accountable no matter how the breach occurred.
Since I don't have mod points today I will just echo your sentiments. GP, die in a fire.
If you think Germany is more classless than America, I doubt you've been there. I've got one word for you: gastarbeiter. In Germany, the second-class citizens aren't even citizens.
While it's true Obama's mom had a Ph.D., if you think you need to be rich to get through a Ph.D program, you're the one who's out of touch with reality.
Just to play devil's advocate here, in America workers have the opportunity to buy shares in their employers' stock. Middle-class workers even have the means to do so. And if there is a society that is closer to being classless than 21st-century America, I'd like to hear about it. Our head of state is the son of a hippie schoolteacher and a foreign student, who lived for several years in a shack with a dirt floor.
So yeah, the worker's utopia has never really come to be, I'll grant you. I none the less suggest that we are closer to it today than one might think.
It works for me. Maybe you are just in the wrong company or working for the wrong boss.
Actually, it is quite possible that we will stop breeding like rabbits. There is a strong inverse correlation between income and birth rate. As the "developing" world slowly but surely rises out of poverty, global population levels will eventually stabilize. They might even go down. I am not an expert on this but one interesting source of data is www.gapminder.org. Their basic thesis is that the gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots" is actually narrowing.
At first I was going to say, "how do you figure?" but then I realized you are right: there are some who are too young to be scheduled for vaccination, and some who are too poor to have access to the vaccine, and there may be others who would want to be vaccinated but can't be for medical reasons. So yes, the pool of unvaccinated people is larger than the pool who refuse the vaccine based on truthiness.
Yes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo
No, it's unjust that you can get all the energy you want/can pay for, whereas someone in sub-Saharan Africa pays twice as much for energy as you do in absolute terms, and many times more relative to his/her income, and lacks a 100% reliable energy source at any price.
What I'm saying is that access is not the same as entitlement, and when you recast a statement about access as a statement about entitlement, you're being either disingenuous or obtuse.
In order to get a reactor to the moon you have to launch it on a rocket, and rockets do not have a really great safety record. The risk/benefit trade-off of launching nuclear fuel through our atmosphere does not seem to be worth it, not when solar energy on the Moon is a readily available alternative.
What happens in a democracy is what the people want to happen. Remember that Socrates was executed by a democracy. Democracy is a necessary condition for justice, not a sufficient one. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and all that.
Would you please become a judge or a police chief? If you do let me know what city you work in.
Could you elaborate on that a bit? I'm not being confrontational, I'm curious. It's not obvious to me how law enforcement agencies benefit from TOR.
Unfortunately there is a lot the authorities can do under the name of "investigation" to harass, abuse, intimidate, and even detain you. Seizing computers is bad enough but if they really want to play hardball they can haul you in "for questioning" ... on a daily basis ... and pick you up at inconvenient times like when you're at the office or in the middle of the night. So really being investigated is the thing you don't want, because it can make your life hell and in the end the cops can just smile and say "No charges. Have a nice day, citizen."
TFA to me says more about the media failing their role as societal and intellectual catalysts, than about a shortage of ideas as such. There are big ideas out there, you just don't hear about them from the media.
At the risk of opening up a political flame war, even the political parties here in the U.S. have big ideas built into their platforms. What level of service and what level of taxation do we really want from our government? How do we distribute the costs of government? Why is illegal immigration a problem and how do we address it? What are the costs of dealing with global warming, and what are the costs of not dealing with it?
It's just that no one is having an intelligent discussion about these topics. They prefer to stake out a position on blind faith and then denounce everyone who disagrees. Seems to me more like a lack of discussion than a shortage of societal challenges or of ideas to deal with those challenges.
I think there are plenty of good ideas -- small, medium, and large -- today. For example, see TED.
The suggestion to "follow your bliss" only works if you are willing to take responsibility for the challenges and risks that entails. I am sorry you are having a hard time finding a job but dude, your attitude is seriously backward. Instead of figuring out what your competitive advantage is and playing to your strengths, you whine about the unfairness of the job market. What you really sound like is someone who has given up.
That is fine, you're entitled to give up if you find the business is not for you. But at least you should be moving on to something that's better for you, not still applying for jobs in a field where you don't believe in your own potential for success.
So my advice to the original poster is if stories like this scare you, then stay the hell away from programming. They don't bother me a bit: I'm 41 years old and more employable than I've ever been before.