It has to have wiggle room and/or the tax has to be small or else the robots will be shifted just enough to not be covered by the law (ala the synthetic pot industry).
They also talk about how we violated the white flag of peaceful parley in the phillipines and the various problems our founding fathers had. And how we experimented on black men- denying them treatment for syphilis.
And yup- also go into how we had federal troops help with the annexation of Hawaii.
Now- as to Crimea- if we were still in the 18th century, there would be no problem. But the world passed a set of laws prohibiting taking territory that way since then. And in a world with nuclear weapons, the knock on implications of such actions are much more dangerous than they were when we were literally sailing around in wooden ships using flintlocks.
We can't judge nations actions pre world war I (and really pre-world war 2) by today's standards.
I appreciate the moderation war going on over this comment posted above:
I do look forward to the time when China can grow up and face it's real history.
You get U.S. history, warts and all as a freshman in college.
It's kinda painful how ignorant of U.S. history people with a high school degree can be at times.
Then picture a billion chinese with a similar depth of knowledge about their countries history (even recent stuff).
---
I mean, it's likely that china has rooms full of people who's job it is to manage world opinion on various forums around the world and slashdot is a significant one.
It's currently at 2,Troll (up from 1,Troll). I managed a 4,Troll once before. Wondering if I'll make the fabled "5,Troll"!
The president has to ACTUALLY staff it. Mr. Trump still has THOUSANDS of jobs STILL unstaffed. He can't implement policy. It's like walmart can't restock produce shelves because they cut staffing levels too low.
It's like Mr. Trump is talking to empty chairs (sort of like Clint Eastwood), giving them orders, smiling and looking proud. But empty chairs can't implement his policies.
His incompetence is the only thing making his presidency remotely bearable.
We used as much in 2014 as we did from 1901 to 2000 combined for some of those.
Estimates of the amount of material in the entire crust (not just proven resources) have long been projected to start running out and getting too expensive to use for their current purposes were made in 1978 and when checked in 2000 those projections were slightly optimistic.
Inflation adjusted prices for many of these elemental materials are up 300% since 1950 with much higher periodic short term spikes. It's part of the reason we have a thin layer of material on a substrate instead of a solid item. It's part of the reason parts that used to last 30 years now last under 5 years.
Recycling isn't 100% efficient so it won't help for very long.
First warner and then stars and then others raised the cost of their content to netflix by as much as 1000%.
They were going to monetize it for their own, $10 a month stations.
But you know what.. I don't WANT to pay $10 to netflix and $10 to warner and $10 to stars, and $10 to....
Netflix was the rare bird who gave great content at a reasonable price.
I'm irritated that Prime split the market and then set up a kludgy interface which constantly tries to upsell me non-free shows. I used it some- and used it for Dr. Who. But I'm irritated by Prime's interface and I finally have mostly stopped using it.
Currently watching Wynonna Earp on Netflix.
I will NOT pay $10 to AMC, NBC, CBS, ABC, Warner, Stars, Etc. etc. etc. It is not reasonable.
It's likely society will adapt and new kinds of jobs will be created eventually (good news)
But it will take at least a generation and perhaps two generations. yes, many luddites really did die homeless and from starvation and exposure*. (much worse news).
And we have other problems on the way (i.e. "limits to growth").
* For bonus points-- during the great depression, cops would beat you and tell you to move on down the road. They would not arrest you. Then they had to feed and house you. And even cheap prison slave labor wasn't worth keeping during the deppression.
And we are on track to exhaust many non-renewable resources fairly soon- even when you consider recycling.
We'll need replacements for many metal based products.
---
Productivity has already risen so far since 1917, that we should be able to feed, entertain and house everyone. Fewer and fewer *have* to work.
What we can't do is pay for medical care at our current "end of life" rates... but if we find a rational way to contain costs in the last 90 days, we could pay for most health care for the rest of people's lives (including most cancer and heart attacks). I'm a late boomer and some early boomers run up 200k bills right before they die. Mostly unconscious or in tremendous pain or warehoused.
Perhaps you have a point for these new "2 hour delivery" but that's kinda like domino's "30 minutes or less" deal.
For daily deliveries, it just makes sense to bundle them.
The straw that broke this particular camel's back was when I went shopping- spent 3 hours of time, put over 30 miles on my car, came back home without the product- and then bought it on line in 20 minutes and it was at my house 2-3 days later.
---
There is a problem tho-- when I shopped locally, the money circulated in the local economy 7 times. When I shop online- it's being pumped directly out of my local economy. Where there were 5 or more clerks- now there is one delivery employee. And when you bring in the other 19 shoppers- it's more like 100 retail clerks to one delivery employee.
Automation, robotics, and efficiency measures are destroying jobs much faster than they are being created.
When retail stores were in downtown areas, there was tremendous congestion when people went to shop.
When they moved around to different malls, there was still a lot of congestion around the strip centers and malls (as recently as the 90s, I remember waiting thru 15-20 minutes of traffic to get into the parking lot.
Now, I bought and paid for 5 products on amazon- I didn't drive- I didn't consume gas- I didn't contribute to congestion on the roads- I didn't get into a car accident, and my car wasn't damaged in the parking lot.
Say 20 consumers shopping personally consume 400 minutes of road time-- 20 shoppers delivery shopping consume 40 minutes of road time.
The problem is the parking infrastructure will need to adapt.
There was a time when we had a mail box at every house. Now, a lot of places have 1 mail box.
Perhaps we'll end up with a big centralized delivery hub for each block. Perhaps a designated parking area for delivery vehicles.
Amazon is looking into drones.
In any case, it's not a problem in my neighborhood yet. They pull up, drop off stuff. The road is constricted but not blockded at any time. Then they leave within 2-3 minutes. This may be more of a problem for high rise condos or apartment buildings than residential neighborhoods.
Aye, at a minimum we can certainly make A.I. as smart as the smartest human that ever existed.
AND that A.I. at a minimum would be able to at least plug in super genius sub-A.I.'s in every field. So it might not be good at everything at the same time but it might be able to be good at many things when it needed to be good at them.
My main issue is just that we consider the risk of a failure of friendliness and take suitable steps.
You know... every super genius is a master of Go, higher mathematics, english literature, Chess, Poker, and can use power tools easily to build cabinetry as well as solve physics and advanced computational theory problems. They are also really good at selling, writing song lyrics, mystery novels, television shows, and science fiction... and flirting.
And I left out the entire class of skills that relate to their physical body.
From the right angle turns on the entrance, it can obviously do that.as long as the rectangular structure fits inside the proscribed sphere the machine can reach.
However, pipes and domes are actually stronger than boxes tho they have more waste space unless your furniture is custom fitted (like a TV table with a rounded back).
My question is how much does the foam cost? If it costs $20,000 to print $12,000 worth of the house then that's not worth much.
Is it made from renewable materials? If it's not, it won't scale up to the global population.
I'm not intending to move the goal posts only to clarify.
When you say "nice" car, I hear something more expensive than a honda accord or honda element. I hear $36k to $42k instead of $22k. If you meant buy a nice car from a company with a good maintenance record then we are in agreement.
I could have pushed harder and gone with 2 year old used cars and saved more and still not been in junkers like you describe but i did not.
It's not about penny pinching- now you are moving the goal posts.
You are painting a picture of being an extreme spendthrift when that's not necessary. If you want to retire even earlier or if you want to retire at my age like those janitors with a million bucks- then sure. But my goal wasn't that extreme.
While I don't "hate" my job- but when I was 30, I realized I got no status or enjoyment out of working like other people do. I've been retired 6 years now and I'm falling behind on doing the things I want to do. There are shows to watch, drawings to draw, songs to play, gardens to tend, walks to take, and places to see.
I realized young that unlike many people I actually enjoyed my life outside of work and if I could just have the money, I felt no need to work. I recognize that some people need to work to feel happy. I'm not wired that way.
Years of luxury DOES trump a few extra years of hard work. That's my entire point. From 20 to 30, I did that. The result was few good memories of the luxuries and a lot less money. It's trivial to waste $20,000 a year eating out, going to bars, etc. It costs money to work. You only get to save some of your income. A huge chunk goes to taxes as well. You save along the way or you work til you die or you commit suicide (as an increasing number of mid 60 year old people are doing).
Buying too much house is like betting large on two pair or even 3 of a kind.
You may win. But you may lose.
Buying less house is like only betting on a full house or even a straight flush.
---
So you buy too much house- then you lose your job. Ruined. So you buy too much house- then you get sick. Ruined. So you buy too much house- then the housing market drops (as it does every recession)- and your pay is cut or taxes go up. Ruined or in a lot of pain. -- The OLD game was to buy a house- let it appreciate and leverage up. Then they got more aggressive and said it was a "no lose" proposal and you should leverage to the max. --
You MIGHT win. You might turn $30,000 into $270,000 in 5 years. But you may also be wiped out.
---
So say you buy a more reasonable house.
In the above cases, you make it thru without much pain (because it's easy to save up a couple years living expenses really quickly when your expenses are low).
Your winnings are not as great (in my case $20,000 would have been about $150,000 if I'd flipped it but instead I stayed and it's $350,000 but that might have been 600,000 to 700,000 if I'd flipped it.).
The case where you lose in both cases a major employer in the region leaves or ceases to exist- housing in the area becomes worthless- taxes remain high longer than you can stand- you go bankrupt and can't sell the house.
In both cases, if you make it- the winning case compared to renting is very nice. Over 90% of investors ACTUAL return is 2-3% over 10, 20, and 30 years (forbes magazine). Rent goes up as fast as inflation but housing payments don't. At the start of a 30 year mortgage you are paying as much for a 3/2 house as a 2/2 rental. At the end of a 30 year mortage, you are often paying under half as much as renters are paying. In retirement, you are paying a quarter what renters are paying (for comparable properties- so in the too much house case, you'd also be renting "too much apartment/luxury condo".
As you point out- everything changes.
Nothing is certain. It's all a percentage game. Real estate only has value when people want to live on it.
And to be honest, the limits to growth scenarios look to turn very, very nasty in 30 years. I'll be hoping I'm dead because a billion to two billion people could die and global wars over resources are likely.
For example- we are using more chromium every year than we did from 1901 to 2000. We are on track to use all of it- with recycling considered and that's whats estimated to be in the entire planet- not just known resources. And that's true for almost every industrial metal outside of iron. And no chromium will mean no more stainless steel. Maybe we'll figure out a replacement for it. But we'll have to find a replacement for so many things so quickly that disruption is more likely. In the mean time- we aren't doing ANYTHING to mitigate the problem. So the likely case is that it will hit hard when it hits.
Who knows-- maybe we can make new elements with fusion.
Anyway... I guess I'm painting a little more of a "buy guns and ammo and join a group" scenario than a "should I have a star bucks or save for the future" scenario. But if it happens, it's going to suck. And if it doesn't happen -well better to own a house than be renting.
I'm almost certainly dead by then (87 and my expected mortality is 78).
That's just luck. Mainly, you just want to save equivalent purchasing power. So by saving half my income until 51, I had enough to retire until 81 (assuming I can keep getting something close to inflation over the next 24 years). My expected mortality is 78. But, if I get "lucky", I have a paid for house (which I could downsize from to free up about $200k or reverse mortgage for an income stream) and I could reign in spending some so I should be in okay til I die. At least no eating pet food.
In my case, so far my investments have covered or slightly exceeded inflation. I'm getting 5.38% thru 2022, for example. We'll, see what things are like then.
Slashdot Mirror
It has to have wiggle room and/or the tax has to be small or else the robots will be shifted just enough to not be covered by the law (ala the synthetic pot industry).
Uh. Dude. They do.
They also talk about how we violated the white flag of peaceful parley in the phillipines and the various problems our founding fathers had. And how we experimented on black men- denying them treatment for syphilis.
And yup- also go into how we had federal troops help with the annexation of Hawaii.
Now- as to Crimea- if we were still in the 18th century, there would be no problem. But the world passed a set of laws prohibiting taking territory that way since then. And in a world with nuclear weapons, the knock on implications of such actions are much more dangerous than they were when we were literally sailing around in wooden ships using flintlocks.
We can't judge nations actions pre world war I (and really pre-world war 2) by today's standards.
I appreciate the moderation war going on over this comment posted above:
I do look forward to the time when China can grow up and face it's real history.
You get U.S. history, warts and all as a freshman in college.
It's kinda painful how ignorant of U.S. history people with a high school degree can be at times.
Then picture a billion chinese with a similar depth of knowledge about their countries history (even recent stuff).
---
I mean, it's likely that china has rooms full of people who's job it is to manage world opinion on various forums around the world and slashdot is a significant one.
It's currently at 2,Troll (up from 1,Troll). I managed a 4,Troll once before. Wondering if I'll make the fabled "5,Troll"!
Congress has to fund it.
The president has to ACTUALLY staff it. Mr. Trump still has THOUSANDS of jobs STILL unstaffed. He can't implement policy. It's like walmart can't restock produce shelves because they cut staffing levels too low.
It's like Mr. Trump is talking to empty chairs (sort of like Clint Eastwood), giving them orders, smiling and looking proud. But empty chairs can't implement his policies.
His incompetence is the only thing making his presidency remotely bearable.
I do look forward to the time when China can grow up and face it's real history.
You get U.S. history, warts and all as a freshman in college.
It's kinda painful how ignorant of U.S. history people with a high school degree can be at times.
Then picture a billion chinese with a similar depth of knowledge about their countries history (even recent stuff).
Chromium, manganese, magnesium, things like that.
We used as much in 2014 as we did from 1901 to 2000 combined for some of those.
Estimates of the amount of material in the entire crust (not just proven resources) have long been projected to start running out and getting too expensive to use for their current purposes were made in 1978 and when checked in 2000 those projections were slightly optimistic.
Inflation adjusted prices for many of these elemental materials are up 300% since 1950 with much higher periodic short term spikes. It's part of the reason we have a thin layer of material on a substrate instead of a solid item. It's part of the reason parts that used to last 30 years now last under 5 years.
Recycling isn't 100% efficient so it won't help for very long.
It's not netflix.
First warner and then stars and then others raised the cost of their content to netflix by as much as 1000%.
They were going to monetize it for their own, $10 a month stations.
But you know what.. I don't WANT to pay $10 to netflix and $10 to warner and $10 to stars, and $10 to....
Netflix was the rare bird who gave great content at a reasonable price.
I'm irritated that Prime split the market and then set up a kludgy interface which constantly tries to upsell me non-free shows. I used it some- and used it for Dr. Who. But I'm irritated by Prime's interface and I finally have mostly stopped using it.
Currently watching Wynonna Earp on Netflix.
I will NOT pay $10 to AMC, NBC, CBS, ABC, Warner, Stars, Etc. etc. etc. It is not reasonable.
It's likely society will adapt and new kinds of jobs will be created eventually (good news)
But it will take at least a generation and perhaps two generations. yes, many luddites really did die homeless and from starvation and exposure*. (much worse news).
And we have other problems on the way (i.e. "limits to growth").
* For bonus points-- during the great depression, cops would beat you and tell you to move on down the road. They would not arrest you. Then they had to feed and house you. And even cheap prison slave labor wasn't worth keeping during the deppression.
And we are on track to exhaust many non-renewable resources fairly soon- even when you consider recycling.
We'll need replacements for many metal based products.
---
Productivity has already risen so far since 1917, that we should be able to feed, entertain and house everyone. Fewer and fewer *have* to work.
What we can't do is pay for medical care at our current "end of life" rates... but if we find a rational way to contain costs in the last 90 days, we could pay for most health care for the rest of people's lives (including most cancer and heart attacks). I'm a late boomer and some early boomers run up 200k bills right before they die. Mostly unconscious or in tremendous pain or warehoused.
okay... now follow that thought thru...
Mr. Burns: Mwha ha ha ha... we have ALL the means of production... now we can charge ANY price we want!!!!
Smithers: Sir... no one else is employed any more. No one has any way to buy our product. ...
My five purchases were bundled into 2 shipments.
Perhaps you have a point for these new "2 hour delivery" but that's kinda like domino's "30 minutes or less" deal.
For daily deliveries, it just makes sense to bundle them.
The straw that broke this particular camel's back was when I went shopping- spent 3 hours of time, put over 30 miles on my car, came back home without the product- and then bought it on line in 20 minutes and it was at my house 2-3 days later.
---
There is a problem tho-- when I shopped locally, the money circulated in the local economy 7 times. When I shop online- it's being pumped directly out of my local economy. Where there were 5 or more clerks- now there is one delivery employee. And when you bring in the other 19 shoppers- it's more like 100 retail clerks to one delivery employee.
Automation, robotics, and efficiency measures are destroying jobs much faster than they are being created.
I'm sorry- I feel ripped off buying ebooks for the same price as print books.
I'm not going to buy an ebook for over 50% of the price of a print book.
When retail stores were in downtown areas, there was tremendous congestion when people went to shop.
When they moved around to different malls, there was still a lot of congestion around the strip centers and malls (as recently as the 90s, I remember waiting thru 15-20 minutes of traffic to get into the parking lot.
Now, I bought and paid for 5 products on amazon- I didn't drive- I didn't consume gas- I didn't contribute to congestion on the roads- I didn't get into a car accident, and my car wasn't damaged in the parking lot.
Say 20 consumers shopping personally consume 400 minutes of road time-- 20 shoppers delivery shopping consume 40 minutes of road time.
The problem is the parking infrastructure will need to adapt.
There was a time when we had a mail box at every house. Now, a lot of places have 1 mail box.
Perhaps we'll end up with a big centralized delivery hub for each block. Perhaps a designated parking area for delivery vehicles.
Amazon is looking into drones.
In any case, it's not a problem in my neighborhood yet. They pull up, drop off stuff. The road is constricted but not blockded at any time. Then they leave within 2-3 minutes. This may be more of a problem for high rise condos or apartment buildings than residential neighborhoods.
Aye, at a minimum we can certainly make A.I. as smart as the smartest human that ever existed.
AND that A.I. at a minimum would be able to at least plug in super genius sub-A.I.'s in every field. So it might not be good at everything at the same time but it might be able to be good at many things when it needed to be good at them.
My main issue is just that we consider the risk of a failure of friendliness and take suitable steps.
You know... every super genius is a master of Go, higher mathematics, english literature, Chess, Poker, and can use power tools easily to build cabinetry as well as solve physics and advanced computational theory problems. They are also really good at selling, writing song lyrics, mystery novels, television shows, and science fiction... and flirting.
And I left out the entire class of skills that relate to their physical body.
It's amazing how good it is to be a genius.
Wish I hadn't posted. I'd mod you insightful.
Man this guy is in denial so hard.
it's sad.
We were supposed to be 10 years away from ai beating human go players.
The power of competing neural networks is a disruptive advance.
We need to be more careful than ever about the risk of a runaway A.I.
It's our common business market, if you want to do business in it, you'll follow our laws and serve all citizens equally.
From the right angle turns on the entrance, it can obviously do that.as long as the rectangular structure fits inside the proscribed sphere the machine can reach.
However, pipes and domes are actually stronger than boxes tho they have more waste space unless your furniture is custom fitted (like a TV table with a rounded back).
My question is how much does the foam cost?
If it costs $20,000 to print $12,000 worth of the house then that's not worth much.
Is it made from renewable materials?
If it's not, it won't scale up to the global population.
As long as it is to lower costs!
If I kill you to lower costs, I still killed you.
If I hit you to lower costs, I still hit you.
If I reaccomodate you to lower costs, I still reaccomodated you.
If I hire people of only one race and age group to replace another group to lower costs, I still committed age and race discrimination.
It's quite simple really.
Motive and intent matters in some cases but in many cases it does not.
I'm not intending to move the goal posts only to clarify.
When you say "nice" car, I hear something more expensive than a honda accord or honda element. I hear $36k to $42k instead of $22k. If you meant buy a nice car from a company with a good maintenance record then we are in agreement.
I could have pushed harder and gone with 2 year old used cars and saved more and still not been in junkers like you describe but i did not.
It's not about penny pinching- now you are moving the goal posts.
You are painting a picture of being an extreme spendthrift when that's not necessary. If you want to retire even earlier or if you want to retire at my age like those janitors with a million bucks- then sure. But my goal wasn't that extreme.
While I don't "hate" my job- but when I was 30, I realized I got no status or enjoyment out of working like other people do. I've been retired 6 years now and I'm falling behind on doing the things I want to do. There are shows to watch, drawings to draw, songs to play, gardens to tend, walks to take, and places to see.
I realized young that unlike many people I actually enjoyed my life outside of work and if I could just have the money, I felt no need to work. I recognize that some people need to work to feel happy. I'm not wired that way.
Years of luxury DOES trump a few extra years of hard work. That's my entire point. From 20 to 30, I did that. The result was few good memories of the luxuries and a lot less money. It's trivial to waste $20,000 a year eating out, going to bars, etc. It costs money to work. You only get to save some of your income. A huge chunk goes to taxes as well. You save along the way or you work til you die or you commit suicide (as an increasing number of mid 60 year old people are doing).
Buying too much house is like betting large on two pair or even 3 of a kind.
You may win. But you may lose.
Buying less house is like only betting on a full house or even a straight flush.
---
So you buy too much house- then you lose your job. Ruined.
So you buy too much house- then you get sick. Ruined.
So you buy too much house- then the housing market drops (as it does every recession)- and your pay is cut or taxes go up. Ruined or in a lot of pain.
--
The OLD game was to buy a house- let it appreciate and leverage up.
Then they got more aggressive and said it was a "no lose" proposal and you should leverage to the max.
--
You MIGHT win. You might turn $30,000 into $270,000 in 5 years. But you may also be wiped out.
---
So say you buy a more reasonable house.
In the above cases, you make it thru without much pain (because it's easy to save up a couple years living expenses really quickly when your expenses are low).
Your winnings are not as great (in my case $20,000 would have been about $150,000 if I'd flipped it but instead I stayed and it's $350,000 but that might have been 600,000 to 700,000 if I'd flipped it.).
The case where you lose in both cases a major employer in the region leaves or ceases to exist- housing in the area becomes worthless- taxes remain high longer than you can stand- you go bankrupt and can't sell the house.
In both cases, if you make it- the winning case compared to renting is very nice. Over 90% of investors ACTUAL return is 2-3% over 10, 20, and 30 years (forbes magazine). Rent goes up as fast as inflation but housing payments don't. At the start of a 30 year mortgage you are paying as much for a 3/2 house as a 2/2 rental. At the end of a 30 year mortage, you are often paying under half as much as renters are paying. In retirement, you are paying a quarter what renters are paying (for comparable properties- so in the too much house case, you'd also be renting "too much apartment/luxury condo".
As you point out- everything changes.
Nothing is certain. It's all a percentage game. Real estate only has value when people want to live on it.
And to be honest, the limits to growth scenarios look to turn very, very nasty in 30 years. I'll be hoping I'm dead because a billion to two billion people could die and global wars over resources are likely.
For example- we are using more chromium every year than we did from 1901 to 2000. We are on track to use all of it- with recycling considered and that's whats estimated to be in the entire planet- not just known resources. And that's true for almost every industrial metal outside of iron. And no chromium will mean no more stainless steel. Maybe we'll figure out a replacement for it. But we'll have to find a replacement for so many things so quickly that disruption is more likely. In the mean time- we aren't doing ANYTHING to mitigate the problem. So the likely case is that it will hit hard when it hits.
Who knows-- maybe we can make new elements with fusion.
Anyway... I guess I'm painting a little more of a "buy guns and ammo and join a group" scenario than a "should I have a star bucks or save for the future" scenario. But if it happens, it's going to suck. And if it doesn't happen -well better to own a house than be renting.
I'm almost certainly dead by then (87 and my expected mortality is 78).
That's just luck. Mainly, you just want to save equivalent purchasing power. So by saving half my income until 51, I had enough to retire until 81 (assuming I can keep getting something close to inflation over the next 24 years). My expected mortality is 78. But, if I get "lucky", I have a paid for house (which I could downsize from to free up about $200k or reverse mortgage for an income stream) and I could reign in spending some so I should be in okay til I die. At least no eating pet food.
In my case, so far my investments have covered or slightly exceeded inflation. I'm getting 5.38% thru 2022, for example. We'll, see what things are like then.
I developed the habit while working. :-)
I enjoy slashdot. It's one of my many retirement activities.