Along those lines- I asked for my usual Diet Coke with a little bit of rootbeer and was told at the drive thru that they couldn't serve mixed drinks any more. I assumed it was some kind of health rule but when I went in, I saw the new machine and realized that it precluded anything but a pure cup of one type of soda.
The "creative" factor of the soda's was erased in exchange for $1 sodas (vs $1.79 at whataburger). For now at least, I just went inside and got my own drink.
There is a lot that can go wrong and result in an unbalanced human being but a lot of highly successful, talented and well balanced individuals in the world are highly intelligent with good recall.
It is possible to win the trifecta (recall Dolf Lundgren and Sylvester Stallone are both genius's).
The time period until humans that were intelligent was billions of years but most of that was single cell or small multi-cellular organisms. Hundreds of Millions would be more accurate.
Also, the first mammal like reptiles didn't show up until about 285 million years ago and actual mammals were after that.
The payoff for automating a well paid job that requires a smart human is much bigger than the payoff for automating a poorly paid job that even a below average iq human can do.
Jobs that involve making analytical non creative decisions previously required a smart human- with an advanced degree. Going forward, not so much.
Creativity and Flexibility are the parts that are hard to automate. Regardless of how smart you have to be to do a job- if the job is repetitive and well defined- it is a good target for automation.
Also.. consider the difference between a smart human (who can be easily automated) and a "creative" human (difficult but not impossible to automate).
Purely "creative" jobs are rare too. So ten jobs which each have a little creativity might be collapsed into three jobs with higher creativity and a machine to do the rest.
And can you imagine the effort to be *creative* all the time. It's not easy.
Highly paid jobs (like actuarial and x-ray analysis) are much more cost effective jobs for automation and more likely to be replaced.
I think creativity will be the last thing to fall.
Manual dexterity (including random bits out of bins and assembling things from them) is already done faster (and already cheaper in some cases) by machines. The vision and manual manipulation problem is mostly beat.
If someone is being an asshole, it's not fair to expect them to be able to stand up to the asshole.
We can encourage them to stand up. But not really expect them to. Hell, they are having a hard enough time interacting with the world already.
I've gone to conventions for years with females and my daughter. We've never had a problem. This includes small cons with a hundred people (one I go to has transgendered people and they get no grief either) and large cons with literally thousands of people (I'm on staff at some).
Don't get me wrong- I AGREE that it happens. I just think it is a really complicated brew of people. Many of whom are not the best adjusted people to begin with.
"This is what Vinge dubbed the Singularity, a point in our collective future that will be utterly, and unknowably transformed by technologyâ(TM)s rapid pace."
No requirement for artificial intelligence.
We are already close to this. Think how utterly and unknowingly society will be transformed when half the working population can't do anything that can't be done better by unintelligent machines and programs.
Last week at the McD's I saw the new soda machine. It loads up to 8 drinks at a time- automatically- fed from the cash register. The only human intervention is to load cups in a bin once an hour or so. One less job. Combined with ordering kiosks and the new robot hamburger makers, you could see 50% of McD's jobs going away over the next few years.
And don't even get me started on the implications of robotic cars and trucks on employment.
Once i knew the condition, the next visit, I knew more than the doctor.
And doctors looked at the symptoms and got them wrong as well.
And many doctors treat only the numbers. This ignores the fact that humans react differently to substances.
But it all fits their practice model.
Train hard. Then mostly stop training and rely on information from drug people. See a patient once or twice a year-- one among several hundred-- so you really have no clue who they are or what is wrong with them other than your notes.
Write hundreds of prescriptions-- so they all sort of start to blur to gether plus your staff often really screws up your prescriptions. I've had multiple prescriptions doubled in strength, halved in strength, increased or decreased in frequency from what the doctor said in our meeting. For the doubling- I often let it stand since the price was the same and cut the meds in half and then built up an emergency supply. Which was good because several times the insurance company got a bureaucratic burp and there was a 10 to 15 day interruption.
But doctors are generally more accurate at detecting when you have something new. It shows up in the numbers first. And they can filter out a better diagnosis.
Each has its place. It is VERY important to be "patient active". Here's the key example. I had chemo and always checked my settings. A patient with me didn't and they misset or misprescribed his chemo by 100:1. This was something that was 99% curable if handled properly but getting that much chemo didn't kill the cancer and they had to send him home because he couldn't take any more chemo of that type. So he probably died since that was the only chemo that worked.
I have a similar issue with most modern entertainment.
It's not that it sucks. It's that there is too much to keep up with. And that's when I'm retired. I could potentially watch tv and read books 15 hours a day and I would be more behind every day than when I woke up.
So I have to select on some basis.
Price and quality are pretty obvious primary filters.
First, I think you are not up birth rates and the projected racial mixes in the very near future in the united states (and other countries as well).
And hispanics own a lot of businesses and are already discriminating.
And there are plenty of non caucasians in positions of power at many businesses.
And there are plenty of women in positions of power at many businesses.
I've seen members of both these groups abuse their power first hand.
While under represented in the boardroom, hispanics, blacks and asians make up a third of the executive and supervisory employees. They have the power to hire, fire, promote, decide what work you get, protect their friends and fire their enemies. I've seen pretty extraordinary discrimination (like the black female executive who only hired and promoted black female managers) which would have gotten a white male manager sensitivity training and a lawsuit.
Whites and Asians are no longer having children at a replacement rate (1.8). Blacks are having children slightly over replacement rate (2.1) and hispanics are having about two and a half children per pair. In 35 years, whites will be a minority group.
I think you are not really considering the way trends are flowing and the way the law is enforced (i.e. unequally).
I'm out of the game myself- retired a year ago. Glad I made it.
No, my question was exploring the limits of the ruling.
i.e.
If you are not in a relationship and someone shares nude photos. If you are in a relationship and they have nude photos plastered all over the place because they are a nude model. If you are in a public space and take a picture of someone who is nude in a public space.
People capable of rational thought discuss issues and explore their limits, boundaries, and implications. If you don't want to see "dumb" questions, don't read internet discussion forums.
I'm sure I've asked some howlingly dumb questions in my life but I don't consider this one to be particularly dumb or especially inappropriate for a discussion about the subject matter.
If someone gives me a gift while sober and sane, I don't consider myself a wanker if I keep decide to keep the gift when they change their mind four years later.
Your assertion is your opinion and has no more value than mine.
In my case, it's especially true because she never asked anyone to delete photos. She was very proud of her boobs and happy to share pictures of them with us.
And the number of united states residents who do NOT "use too much fat, sugar and watch mindless crapp" exceeds the population of several european nations so please don't stereotype us. We are a complex population with a wide range of behaviors and beliefs.
Perhaps you are confused because I said "appearance" instead of "race."
I was not saying it was because she was ugly or fat. I'm saying it is because she appeared of a particular racial group and the target company/manager/owner didn't want to her people of that racial group. This still happens and it happens to all races now.
I was presenting a scenario where she was turned down for a job because of her race and it was clear (perhaps because of a stupid interviewer or because of the staff being 100% of one race) that it was because of her race.
If that were to occur, I was asking would the parent still say on principle that race didn't (or at least shouldnt') matter and would ignore rather than try to address the discrimination. And further, would the parent even feel race shouldn't matter and that the matter should be ignored.
She had a boyfriend but she liked showing off her boobs to a small group of guys. So she sent me some unsolicited pictures of her boobs. It was a near thing because 2 months later, she ended up marrying the guy and all sexts were ended.
Since we were not in a relationship and the photos were unsolicited, what would the german court say then?
Everyone in europe (and africa, and europe, and yup, australia) today are descendents of people who repeatedly killed large numbers of people and took their land and their stuff. In particular, the people from Spain slaughtered the mayans and aztecs and took their stuff.
Try again.
Also, whites haven't "controlled everything" in the united states for a generation now. Because most whites were just and fair and agreed discrimination was wrong.
And now to the just and fair part. IF hispanics dominate a field of low paying jobs and a white person wants to work in it and the only reason they won't hire her is because she is white. IS that fair?
If a white person is pulled over and has no insurance, they face severe penalties. Enough hispanics drive without insurance that everyone else must carry "uninsured motorist" coverage because the law isn't enforced equally on them.
I thought we were shooting for a fair and just society where race isn't a factor in your ability to get a job, a house, or how you are treated by the law, aren't we?
As I said, it has nothing to do with the ability to speak the language. You can be fluent. It doesn't matter.
Anti-discrimination laws are not equally enforced against minorities and they discriminate like hell. They don't even think of it as discrimination or that they are doing anything wrong because they are not called on it so they don't even have to consider it.
And what if Milan is turned down for jobs based on her appearance or gender?
Does her race matter then?
Going forward, whites are just as likely to suffer racial discrimination.
There are many construction companies where you can't get a job unless you are hispanic. It's not about the pay. It's not about your skills. It's not whether you can speak spanish.
It's flat out because a "white" won't "fit in" with a hispanic crew.
There is a reason we made that kind of behavior illegal to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting point.
Along those lines- I asked for my usual Diet Coke with a little bit of rootbeer and was told at the drive thru that they couldn't serve mixed drinks any more. I assumed it was some kind of health rule but when I went in, I saw the new machine and realized that it precluded anything but a pure cup of one type of soda.
The "creative" factor of the soda's was erased in exchange for $1 sodas (vs $1.79 at whataburger). For now at least, I just went inside and got my own drink.
There is a lot that can go wrong and result in an unbalanced human being but a lot of highly successful, talented and well balanced individuals in the world are highly intelligent with good recall.
It is possible to win the trifecta (recall Dolf Lundgren and Sylvester Stallone are both genius's).
The time period until humans that were intelligent was billions of years but most of that was single cell or small multi-cellular organisms. Hundreds of Millions would be more accurate.
Also, the first mammal like reptiles didn't show up until about 285 million years ago and actual mammals were after that.
Hominids are a fairly recent arrival.
Just FYI.
So it's no good for poor seniors living on social security and the unemployed.
My point is that while people on the low end are being automated so are people on the high end. It's already happening.
http://www.npr.org/2011/11/03/...
The payoff for automating a well paid job that requires a smart human is much bigger than the payoff for automating a poorly paid job that even a below average iq human can do.
Most the the work smart human does is being automated all the time by expert systems.
A lot of the work smart humans do turns out to be a small rules set.
A decent article on the concept here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/infog...
Jobs that involve making analytical non creative decisions previously required a smart human- with an advanced degree. Going forward, not so much.
Creativity and Flexibility are the parts that are hard to automate. Regardless of how smart you have to be to do a job- if the job is repetitive and well defined- it is a good target for automation.
Also.. consider the difference between a smart human (who can be easily automated) and a "creative" human (difficult but not impossible to automate).
Purely "creative" jobs are rare too. So ten jobs which each have a little creativity might be collapsed into three jobs with higher creativity and a machine to do the rest.
And can you imagine the effort to be *creative* all the time. It's not easy.
The anonymous coward has a good point.
Highly paid jobs (like actuarial and x-ray analysis) are much more cost effective jobs for automation and more likely to be replaced.
I think creativity will be the last thing to fall.
Manual dexterity (including random bits out of bins and assembling things from them) is already done faster (and already cheaper in some cases) by machines.
The vision and manual manipulation problem is mostly beat.
Nerd are shy by definition.
If someone is being an asshole, it's not fair to expect them to be able to stand up to the asshole.
We can encourage them to stand up. But not really expect them to. Hell, they are having a hard enough time interacting with the world already.
I've gone to conventions for years with females and my daughter. We've never had a problem. This includes small cons with a hundred people (one I go to has transgendered people and they get no grief either) and large cons with literally thousands of people (I'm on staff at some).
Don't get me wrong- I AGREE that it happens. I just think it is a really complicated brew of people. Many of whom are not the best adjusted people to begin with.
1 of them is an asshole.
Result--- all nerds are assholes.
I've been to conventions. I've seen the way that nerds interact with the females there. And the number of assholes is way under 1%.
"This is what Vinge dubbed the Singularity, a point in our collective future that will be utterly, and unknowably transformed by technologyâ(TM)s rapid pace."
No requirement for artificial intelligence.
We are already close to this. Think how utterly and unknowingly society will be transformed when half the working population can't do anything that can't be done better by unintelligent machines and programs.
Last week at the McD's I saw the new soda machine. It loads up to 8 drinks at a time- automatically- fed from the cash register. The only human intervention is to load cups in a bin once an hour or so. One less job. Combined with ordering kiosks and the new robot hamburger makers, you could see 50% of McD's jobs going away over the next few years.
And don't even get me started on the implications of robotic cars and trucks on employment.
Since I was sent nude picture by a girl who I was not in a relationship with, the question was a reasonable one to ask.
Time to drop this thread. Peace out.
Once i knew the condition, the next visit, I knew more than the doctor.
And doctors looked at the symptoms and got them wrong as well.
And many doctors treat only the numbers. This ignores the fact that humans react differently to substances.
But it all fits their practice model.
Train hard. Then mostly stop training and rely on information from drug people. See a patient once or twice a year-- one among several hundred-- so you really have no clue who they are or what is wrong with them other than your notes.
Write hundreds of prescriptions-- so they all sort of start to blur to gether plus your staff often really screws up your prescriptions. I've had multiple prescriptions doubled in strength, halved in strength, increased or decreased in frequency from what the doctor said in our meeting. For the doubling- I often let it stand since the price was the same and cut the meds in half and then built up an emergency supply. Which was good because several times the insurance company got a bureaucratic burp and there was a 10 to 15 day interruption.
But doctors are generally more accurate at detecting when you have something new. It shows up in the numbers first. And they can filter out a better diagnosis.
Each has its place. It is VERY important to be "patient active". Here's the key example. I had chemo and always checked my settings. A patient with me didn't and they misset or misprescribed his chemo by 100:1. This was something that was 99% curable if handled properly but getting that much chemo didn't kill the cancer and they had to send him home because he couldn't take any more chemo of that type. So he probably died since that was the only chemo that worked.
Trust but verify.
I have a similar issue with most modern entertainment.
It's not that it sucks. It's that there is too much to keep up with. And that's when I'm retired. I could potentially watch tv and read books 15 hours a day and I would be more behind every day than when I woke up.
So I have to select on some basis.
Price and quality are pretty obvious primary filters.
First, I think you are not up birth rates and the projected racial mixes in the very near future in the united states (and other countries as well).
And hispanics own a lot of businesses and are already discriminating.
And there are plenty of non caucasians in positions of power at many businesses.
And there are plenty of women in positions of power at many businesses.
I've seen members of both these groups abuse their power first hand.
While under represented in the boardroom, hispanics, blacks and asians make up a third of the executive and supervisory employees. They have the power to hire, fire, promote, decide what work you get, protect their friends and fire their enemies. I've seen pretty extraordinary discrimination (like the black female executive who only hired and promoted black female managers) which would have gotten a white male manager sensitivity training and a lawsuit.
Whites and Asians are no longer having children at a replacement rate (1.8). Blacks are having children slightly over replacement rate (2.1) and hispanics are having about two and a half children per pair. In 35 years, whites will be a minority group.
I think you are not really considering the way trends are flowing and the way the law is enforced (i.e. unequally).
I'm out of the game myself- retired a year ago. Glad I made it.
No, my question was exploring the limits of the ruling.
i.e.
If you are not in a relationship and someone shares nude photos.
If you are in a relationship and they have nude photos plastered all over the place because they are a nude model.
If you are in a public space and take a picture of someone who is nude in a public space.
People capable of rational thought discuss issues and explore their limits, boundaries, and implications. If you don't want to see "dumb" questions, don't read internet discussion forums.
I'm sure I've asked some howlingly dumb questions in my life but I don't consider this one to be particularly dumb or especially inappropriate for a discussion about the subject matter.
So we disagree.
If someone gives me a gift while sober and sane, I don't consider myself a wanker if I keep decide to keep the gift when they change their mind four years later.
Your assertion is your opinion and has no more value than mine.
In my case, it's especially true because she never asked anyone to delete photos. She was very proud of her boobs and happy to share pictures of them with us.
And the number of united states residents who do NOT "use too much fat, sugar and watch mindless crapp" exceeds the population of several european nations so please don't stereotype us. We are a complex population with a wide range of behaviors and beliefs.
Perhaps you are confused because I said "appearance" instead of "race."
I was not saying it was because she was ugly or fat. I'm saying it is because she appeared of a particular racial group and the target company/manager/owner didn't want to her people of that racial group. This still happens and it happens to all races now.
I was presenting a scenario where she was turned down for a job because of her race and it was clear (perhaps because of a stupid interviewer or because of the staff being 100% of one race) that it was because of her race.
If that were to occur, I was asking would the parent still say on principle that race didn't (or at least shouldnt') matter and would ignore rather than try to address the discrimination. And further, would the parent even feel race shouldn't matter and that the matter should be ignored.
Because this has happened.
She had a boyfriend but she liked showing off her boobs to a small group of guys.
So she sent me some unsolicited pictures of her boobs. It was a near thing because 2 months later, she ended up marrying the guy and all sexts were ended.
Since we were not in a relationship and the photos were unsolicited, what would the german court say then?
Everyone in europe (and africa, and europe, and yup, australia) today are descendents of people who repeatedly killed large numbers of people and took their land and their stuff. In particular, the people from Spain slaughtered the mayans and aztecs and took their stuff.
Try again.
Also, whites haven't "controlled everything" in the united states for a generation now. Because most whites were just and fair and agreed discrimination was wrong.
And now to the just and fair part.
IF hispanics dominate a field of low paying jobs and a white person wants to work in it and the only reason they won't hire her is because she is white. IS that fair?
If a white person is pulled over and has no insurance, they face severe penalties. Enough hispanics drive without insurance that everyone else must carry "uninsured motorist" coverage because the law isn't enforced equally on them.
I thought we were shooting for a fair and just society where race isn't a factor in your ability to get a job, a house, or how you are treated by the law, aren't we?
The annual number of H1B visas issued 85,000.
However, the number of H1B visas working in the USA is closer to 750,000 today.
(it was about 650,000 in 2009.
http://cis.org/estimating-h1b-...)
There are roughly five million STEM jobs including immigrant labor and native born labor.
So about 1/8 of all these jobs are taken by H1B visas.
Meanwhile, there are almost double the number of native born with STEM degrees.
There is not a shortage of workers. There is a shortage of workers willing to work for low wages.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-G...
As I said, it has nothing to do with the ability to speak the language. You can be fluent. It doesn't matter.
Anti-discrimination laws are not equally enforced against minorities and they discriminate like hell. They don't even think of it as discrimination or that they are doing anything wrong because they are not called on it so they don't even have to consider it.
I can't explain why you feel how you feel. It's enough that you thought about it.
And I don't think your current response is hypocritical.
If she is discriminated against and gets upset and you act differently- then your response will be hypocritical.
Some people will turn the other cheek to people who are killing them. I can respect that.
You may have ideals that make you feel race or sex discrimination are permissible or should be tolerated for some reason.
And what if Milan is turned down for jobs based on her appearance or gender?
Does her race matter then?
Going forward, whites are just as likely to suffer racial discrimination.
There are many construction companies where you can't get a job unless you are hispanic. It's not about the pay. It's not about your skills. It's not whether you can speak spanish.
It's flat out because a "white" won't "fit in" with a hispanic crew.
There is a reason we made that kind of behavior illegal to begin with.
where china windows XP is supported but not united states XP?