Problem is if it is too diluted you end up with a 3rd world shithole. In actual capitalistic countries we tend to see this, a small number of massively (by local standard) wealthy families and wide spread poverty elsewhere with a high unemployment rate. Wealth continues to concentrate, good land and trade opportunities end up in the hands of a few and things stagnate. Generally the only way to break the cycle ends up being violent revolution, it really is not pretty.
So yes, there will still be some sort of economy, but it produces a horrible life for most people. Labor can only get so cheap before there just isn't a enough demand, people are paid poorly and that money immediately gets used for necessities that are provided industries owned by the wealthy, so it flows strait back to them without getting passed around the poor communities much.
I am guessing you have not actually taken economics 101. When you get away from pundits and people who make a living selling pop-economics books 'minimum income' systems work pretty well. They tend to not get implemented for political reasons, they 'feel' wrong, but the math and effects are pretty positive.
It should also be noted that 'unplanned economies' do not work either, individuals working with their own interest and desires produce destructive economic results. Actual economic theory dropped that idea nearly 50 years ago since we have plenty of historical examples of how unstable and suboptimal such economies are. Which is why any economy outside 3rd world expletiveholes does a balancing act between the two structures with planning and regulation.
One thing to consider though is that even if a robot can not handle parts of the creative process, it can significantly reduce the number of people needed to produce and distribute content. This is partly a good thing since it opens up opportunities for people who could not have afforded to strike out on their own before. However, media gets saturated pretty quickly. If you take a team of 10 people and reduce the labor required to only 1, you might end up with 10 people producing entire chains,,but consumers can only absorb so much so 8 or 9 of them are going to experience a significant drop in standard of living while 1 ends up doing much better. While not an absolute 'there are no people' problem, from an economic perspective that is not a good situation and eventually results in a lower total size.
We have not had 'industrial revolution' for all that long, so assuming that everything will work out and new jobs will be created is not that safe. The whole point of the argument was that as robots improve they will displace more and more jobs without creating sufficient new ones. It also pointed out that the 'new economy' jobs that have been created over the last few decades make up a small percentage of the workforce while the largest job types right now are ones that people are trying to develop automatic systems to replace them.
It should also be noted that historical cases did not go very well. They tended to produce a certain number of middle class benefits and significant upper class benefits, but with each leap forward poverty becomes a bigger and bigger problem. While the middle class dominates forums like this, we are not the whole population and stuff that benefits us can have consequences elsewhere... and every year there are fewer and fewer people in the middle class. So in the next big leap, a non-trivial percentage of us middle class people will end up dropping below the poverty line. A few will move up into upper middle class or even upper class, and they will look around and talk about how wonderful things have gotten, but others will not be so fortunate.
You would think that the existing real world examples would give them pause. In industries that have replaced workers with robots, owners and customers of the direct company benefited, but the companies that catered to the workforce as customers went under and you end up with blighted towns.
That is the general problem with a lot of 'do it cheaper' moves, they work best when your company does them but others continue to provide good wages. In the medium term profits sore, but the economy collapses around them.
One of the problems is that as a network gets moderately successful catering to a niche, new management comes in and sees niche markets as a resume stain and thus try to go after the same 'mainstream' demographics as all the other networks. Niches are reasonably profitable, but they will not get you laid at parties. So I would say it is not even about money, it is about status and transient executives wanting a shot at being known for taking a niche channel and making it a respectable success at great risk to the company.
How do you know? Maybe the poster is an alien attempting to discredit these truthful and insightful networks who are just trying to educate us sheep. Think about the risks they are taking just to get this programming to our eyeballs, they are under constant threat of shadowy government figures kidnapping them in the middle of the night and making it look like a simple normal moose stampede. Heros I tell you!
Because some people are under the delusion that if the IRS can not grab your records electronically then taxes become unenforceable and would go away, or at minimal they dream of dodging them... even though our current system is self reporting already.
It is still pretty common in the US too. When I used to work retail I frequently had customers come in with their cash still in envelope in order to make big purchases.
I have been hearing that argument for decades, but it rarely seems to actually play out that way. It always seemed like little more then a rationalization for why one is unwilling to compromise then an actual reasoned strategy.
Extremists make sense to each other, they can easily set up a binary comparison since there are direct differences. Centrists feel 'off', their views are more complicated, harder to grasp.
They want to ensure business and (their) religion is protected, and everybody else is on their own.
Unfortunately, that is kinda the point of a representative, or at least a major element. Getting the best deals and most support for their constituents. In a way this is small government in action, loyalty to their state rather then the country. If they can protect companies in their state at the expense of companies in other states, that benefits their people.
Re:And this is the same for copyrights.
on
Patents That Kill
·
· Score: 1
Some companies include such things as part of people's benefits package.
If nothing else, people need to remember that the NSA is a big organization with lots of departments in it with different sets of priorities.
As for why someone did not come up with it before, I have not looked lately, but old versions of GCC could compile together half a dozen languages into a single binary and I worked on a team that split up the project into multiple languages using the feature.
He probably wants "Innovation", you know, change for the sake of change? Taking something that works and making new partly incompatible versions of it so that it does not have the taint of old and uncool.
Besides, who would want to work on a stable platform where all the major library needs have been met and vetted when one can be on the bleeding edge of something new to show off?
In this case it would not help. The attack essentially collected work but did not issue payment, and banks will generally not get involved with that kind of dispute.
In general, no. It might give you an indication that you have had a partial hardware failure or something is overheating, but for the most part it is just a 'this is nifty' thing.
Even if it is a minor thing, companies still need to get called out on fraud. Ideally the police would handle this, but realistically the only way to have Sony actually get in trouble is a civil suit. The DoJ is not doing its job.
Sad thing is, this is something regulators and the DoJ SHOULD be doing, but instead they drop the burden on citizens like this to foot the bill for prosecution.
Sad thing is, this is less 'abuse of power' and more 'laziness'. A high false positive rate is an indication that they are not really bothering to confirm people or clean up the list over time, they are just throwing stuff in a bin and moving on.
Thing is, these 'modules' will not actually help there. All they are really talking about is shorter courses. Many (most?) universities already have structures in place for 4-6 week courses (usually over summers) that function like this, but chopping up the coursework into a bunch of smaller pieces really does not solve any underlying problems of individual courses being well suited or not.
Slashdot Mirror
Problem is if it is too diluted you end up with a 3rd world shithole. In actual capitalistic countries we tend to see this, a small number of massively (by local standard) wealthy families and wide spread poverty elsewhere with a high unemployment rate. Wealth continues to concentrate, good land and trade opportunities end up in the hands of a few and things stagnate. Generally the only way to break the cycle ends up being violent revolution, it really is not pretty.
So yes, there will still be some sort of economy, but it produces a horrible life for most people. Labor can only get so cheap before there just isn't a enough demand, people are paid poorly and that money immediately gets used for necessities that are provided industries owned by the wealthy, so it flows strait back to them without getting passed around the poor communities much.
I am guessing you have not actually taken economics 101. When you get away from pundits and people who make a living selling pop-economics books 'minimum income' systems work pretty well. They tend to not get implemented for political reasons, they 'feel' wrong, but the math and effects are pretty positive.
It should also be noted that 'unplanned economies' do not work either, individuals working with their own interest and desires produce destructive economic results. Actual economic theory dropped that idea nearly 50 years ago since we have plenty of historical examples of how unstable and suboptimal such economies are. Which is why any economy outside 3rd world expletiveholes does a balancing act between the two structures with planning and regulation.
One thing to consider though is that even if a robot can not handle parts of the creative process, it can significantly reduce the number of people needed to produce and distribute content. This is partly a good thing since it opens up opportunities for people who could not have afforded to strike out on their own before. However, media gets saturated pretty quickly. If you take a team of 10 people and reduce the labor required to only 1, you might end up with 10 people producing entire chains, ,but consumers can only absorb so much so 8 or 9 of them are going to experience a significant drop in standard of living while 1 ends up doing much better. While not an absolute 'there are no people' problem, from an economic perspective that is not a good situation and eventually results in a lower total size.
We have not had 'industrial revolution' for all that long, so assuming that everything will work out and new jobs will be created is not that safe. The whole point of the argument was that as robots improve they will displace more and more jobs without creating sufficient new ones. It also pointed out that the 'new economy' jobs that have been created over the last few decades make up a small percentage of the workforce while the largest job types right now are ones that people are trying to develop automatic systems to replace them.
It should also be noted that historical cases did not go very well. They tended to produce a certain number of middle class benefits and significant upper class benefits, but with each leap forward poverty becomes a bigger and bigger problem. While the middle class dominates forums like this, we are not the whole population and stuff that benefits us can have consequences elsewhere... and every year there are fewer and fewer people in the middle class. So in the next big leap, a non-trivial percentage of us middle class people will end up dropping below the poverty line. A few will move up into upper middle class or even upper class, and they will look around and talk about how wonderful things have gotten, but others will not be so fortunate.
You would think that the existing real world examples would give them pause. In industries that have replaced workers with robots, owners and customers of the direct company benefited, but the companies that catered to the workforce as customers went under and you end up with blighted towns.
That is the general problem with a lot of 'do it cheaper' moves, they work best when your company does them but others continue to provide good wages. In the medium term profits sore, but the economy collapses around them.
One of the problems is that as a network gets moderately successful catering to a niche, new management comes in and sees niche markets as a resume stain and thus try to go after the same 'mainstream' demographics as all the other networks. Niches are reasonably profitable, but they will not get you laid at parties. So I would say it is not even about money, it is about status and transient executives wanting a shot at being known for taking a niche channel and making it a respectable success at great risk to the company.
I have a feeling they are doing their market research by looking at youtube popularity....
How do you know? Maybe the poster is an alien attempting to discredit these truthful and insightful networks who are just trying to educate us sheep. Think about the risks they are taking just to get this programming to our eyeballs, they are under constant threat of shadowy government figures kidnapping them in the middle of the night and making it look like a simple normal moose stampede. Heros I tell you!
Because some people are under the delusion that if the IRS can not grab your records electronically then taxes become unenforceable and would go away, or at minimal they dream of dodging them... even though our current system is self reporting already.
It is still pretty common in the US too. When I used to work retail I frequently had customers come in with their cash still in envelope in order to make big purchases.
I have been hearing that argument for decades, but it rarely seems to actually play out that way. It always seemed like little more then a rationalization for why one is unwilling to compromise then an actual reasoned strategy.
Extremists make sense to each other, they can easily set up a binary comparison since there are direct differences. Centrists feel 'off', their views are more complicated, harder to grasp.
They want to ensure business and (their) religion is protected, and everybody else is on their own.
Unfortunately, that is kinda the point of a representative, or at least a major element. Getting the best deals and most support for their constituents. In a way this is small government in action, loyalty to their state rather then the country. If they can protect companies in their state at the expense of companies in other states, that benefits their people.
Some companies include such things as part of people's benefits package.
If nothing else, people need to remember that the NSA is a big organization with lots of departments in it with different sets of priorities.
As for why someone did not come up with it before, I have not looked lately, but old versions of GCC could compile together half a dozen languages into a single binary and I worked on a team that split up the project into multiple languages using the feature.
But I thought we were replacing PCs with the web? If it can not run in a browser, does it really exist?
He probably wants "Innovation", you know, change for the sake of change? Taking something that works and making new partly incompatible versions of it so that it does not have the taint of old and uncool.
Besides, who would want to work on a stable platform where all the major library needs have been met and vetted when one can be on the bleeding edge of something new to show off?
In this case it would not help. The attack essentially collected work but did not issue payment, and banks will generally not get involved with that kind of dispute.
In general, no. It might give you an indication that you have had a partial hardware failure or something is overheating, but for the most part it is just a 'this is nifty' thing.
Now now, because of original sin we know those babies probably have it coming.
Even if it is a minor thing, companies still need to get called out on fraud. Ideally the police would handle this, but realistically the only way to have Sony actually get in trouble is a civil suit. The DoJ is not doing its job.
Sad thing is, this is something regulators and the DoJ SHOULD be doing, but instead they drop the burden on citizens like this to foot the bill for prosecution.
Sad thing is, this is less 'abuse of power' and more 'laziness'. A high false positive rate is an indication that they are not really bothering to confirm people or clean up the list over time, they are just throwing stuff in a bin and moving on.
Thing is, these 'modules' will not actually help there. All they are really talking about is shorter courses. Many (most?) universities already have structures in place for 4-6 week courses (usually over summers) that function like this, but chopping up the coursework into a bunch of smaller pieces really does not solve any underlying problems of individual courses being well suited or not.