We have examples of how to do it right, for example, Norway, or Alaska where they just mail everyone check
Many consider that "socialism", which as I mentioned, is a hard-sell in the USA.
If you ask Alaskans, they'll say "the oil belongs to all Alaskans, and that's why we get a check." The robots don't belong to the citizens, or at least it won't be seen that way. I like the analogy, but it won't fly politically in "red" America. Corporations and the far right will claim taxing the robot owners still stifle incentive for innovation. (While partly true, they heavily exaggerate the motivation factor, and their base eats it up.)
Burning energy to hover someone in the air against gravity...is going to be orders of magnitude more energy required than rolling them forward on wheels.
True, it's comparing mass transit planes to an individual car when a bus may be more comparable, but the difference is not "orders of magnitude" even if that's taken into account.
One shouldn't have to hover much if the traffic control system gets streamlined.
Flying aside, the idea of "pod cars" seems better for commutes. You have a pod-car with a bot-removable wheel base. You drive to a tram station, bots remove the wheel base and hook you up to the pod-tram, which takes you most the distance. The reverse happens at the other end, and you drive the last couple of miles in the pod-car to work.
You never have to leave your pod: it's the best mix of private vehicles and mass transportation. And the pod-tram can still be used by those without cars.
Jetsons Rule: When R&D-intensive firms switch focus from one Jetsons-like technology to another, I means they ran into a dead-end(s) in the first. And, we'll probably get neither any time soon.
Must mean AI and cheap-space-travel hit a wall in this case.
Robots taking all our jobs is a good thing. It means we won't have to work anymore.
But in practice our society/economy is NOT geared to take advantage of that. How does purchasing power flow from the bot owners to bot users? Nobody has solved that, and most existing ideas use "socialism", which is a four-letter-word in USA.
I suspect automation/AI is one reason that inflation is under par*: machines' ability to produce has gone up, but purchasing power has dropped because the machines took away paychecks from would-be consumers. The producer/consumer cycle is broke. The GDP potential has increased but not paychecks, and thus companies are reluctant to expand capacity. Inflation only tends to go up when capacity is reached. But bots increased the ceiling on capacity.
While GOP claims regulations are main reason for lack of hiring, honest CEO's will tell you lack of consumers is THE biggest bottleneck to expansion.
We need new economic theories, and countries/politicians brave enough to try them.
* Economies tend to be at their best when annual inflation runs above 2.2 percent. (Too high and inflationary spirals can be triggered. Thus about 2.3 is probably about where the best balance is.)
"High brow" programming has never proven itself in practice for multiple projects. There's never been a case where top-notch, highly-educated programmers are put into a single organization such that it consistently out-competes the "medium-brow" shops. They may be paid more than average, but in theory they'd be far more productive using high-brow techniques such that it overshadows their higher salaries.
Some bring up Paul Graham and his e-stores company, but that was a one-shot deal. Once the company became established it abandoned Lisp. Quick-to-market entrepreneurial may benefit from it, but I'm talking rank and file projects.
Assuming that's true, there are 50 or so "great ideas" on my desk. I don't have time to try them all for an extended period of time. Why should I assume FP is more fruitful than the others?
There are certain things in existence that can't be shown
Bullshit! When I found benefits in something I was able to articulate and show realistic examples. Some of it turned out to be purely personal preference, but I say so if that's the case. My eyes and brain prefer certain things organized a certain way that doesn't always match other brains/eyes.
If it cannot be shown objectively, something is probably wrong on the claimer's side. Sorry, I find "can't explain" an anti-scientific copout. You should study benefit articulation over a long period until you finally "get it". Touche!
I've yet to see realistic examples of improvements, at least for domains I work in. Those pushing FP either invent contrived "lab toy" circumstances where FP shines, use vague buzzwords that don't describe any concrete benefit, or merely expose the weakness of a particular language or API design (such as Java's poor OOP model).
If you want to convince people, show them realistic examples and explain the benefits in concrete and measurable terms. Is that asking too much?
They may say, "If you use it long enough, you'll finally get it"; but there are so many tools and ideas competing for our time that I'll have to ask for more up-front evidence, if you don't mind.
But soy can cause allergic reactions and gas in some people. Saying it's a chicken sandwich when it's really a soy sandwich is selling something different than what's listed.
I like the fight: competition in action. I wish telecoms would bash each other over forced bundling, lousy reliability, lousy customer service, etc. etc. etc. etc.
"False" per "Every string parses as valid code in Perl."
I was mostly joking, as the emoticon apparently failed to show. Still, Perl is very "flexible" that way compared to most languages.
Put another way, if a hyper toddler or an angry President randomly bashed around the keyboard, the probability of the results "running" without explicit errors are probably higher in Perl than other common languages.
I've heard this called the "angry monkey metric" by some.
[compare to] Obama's failing to close Guantanamo for eight years
That's arguably different because enough Democrats also apposed him, often on the grounds of NIMBY per custody facilities. All Republicans want ACA replaced, they just don't agree on what the replacement should look like*.
And O did pass ACA and the stimulus package. T has signed no bill of significance so far except telecom URL snooping. Granted, it's still early in T's term, but GOP is divided on his other plans also.
* Actually, there's no free HC lunch: GOP will have to throw some demographics under the bus to make HC cheaper for others.
McAfee slows and jams up lots of stuff at our org.
The cyber security team has used very aggressive McAfee settings. The security manager gets awards for security, but there is no anti-award for jamming productivity to counter. Thus, his incentive is to crank McAfee to 11. Productivity is somebody else's problem.
For example, McAfee is set to On Access scanning on every desktop and server, meaning it scans almost every file accessed. Java "compressed" files, such as JAR's take forever to de-compress and scan, often more than 2 minutes. Thus, anything that uses Java as its engine is almost useless.
One can request such files be white-listed on a case-by-case basis, but the security team is too bogged down to get to them in a timely manner, and they often use a narrow interpretation "to be safe" such that they miss some files, requiring multiple rounds of requests to get such apps use-able.
McAfee's scan logs don't give enough info to be useful for up-front white-listing. Most users stopped bothering and just avoid using Java-based apps, paying for the more expensive alternatives. They blame Java instead of McAfee because they don't know the difference. (Arguably it could be said that large compressed libraries are a bad idea on Java's part. I hope they rid that feature. Or McAfee could make its scanners more Java-friendly.)
On a more general level, performance consultants have looked at our slow systems and concluded we should get PC's with SSD's instead of disks. But there's (allegedly) no budget for that, so even new PC's are disk-based and McAfee and On Access scanning gradually eats them up over time as typical Windows time-bloat piles up. Thus, we go through PC's faster, and in the end DON'T save money by using disks (productivity aside).
And lately they install more security doo-dads from other companies. They don't talk much about them to keep them stealthy. Those just add slugs on top of snails.
We joke we don't get hacked because our slow systems make the hackers fall asleep waiting for response. Security through Snoozativity.
I guess I shouldn't entirely blame the fastidious security manager because breaches could cause real havoc at our org. But, resources are not allocated to deal with the downsides of such fastidious cyber security. That's the top boss's fault.
The first rule of inventing stuff is to define specifically what exactly do you wish to achieve.
I have to partly disagree. Sometimes you have to experiment and road-test ideas. Many successful entrepreneurs will tell you that being nimble based on customer feedback and market trends is important.
Slashdot Mirror
Many consider that "socialism", which as I mentioned, is a hard-sell in the USA.
If you ask Alaskans, they'll say "the oil belongs to all Alaskans, and that's why we get a check." The robots don't belong to the citizens, or at least it won't be seen that way. I like the analogy, but it won't fly politically in "red" America. Corporations and the far right will claim taxing the robot owners still stifle incentive for innovation. (While partly true, they heavily exaggerate the motivation factor, and their base eats it up.)
This article suggests otherwise.
True, it's comparing mass transit planes to an individual car when a bus may be more comparable, but the difference is not "orders of magnitude" even if that's taken into account.
One shouldn't have to hover much if the traffic control system gets streamlined.
Flying aside, the idea of "pod cars" seems better for commutes. You have a pod-car with a bot-removable wheel base. You drive to a tram station, bots remove the wheel base and hook you up to the pod-tram, which takes you most the distance. The reverse happens at the other end, and you drive the last couple of miles in the pod-car to work.
You never have to leave your pod: it's the best mix of private vehicles and mass transportation. And the pod-tram can still be used by those without cars.
Jetsons Rule: When R&D-intensive firms switch focus from one Jetsons-like technology to another, I means they ran into a dead-end(s) in the first. And, we'll probably get neither any time soon.
Must mean AI and cheap-space-travel hit a wall in this case.
But in practice our society/economy is NOT geared to take advantage of that. How does purchasing power flow from the bot owners to bot users? Nobody has solved that, and most existing ideas use "socialism", which is a four-letter-word in USA.
I suspect automation/AI is one reason that inflation is under par*: machines' ability to produce has gone up, but purchasing power has dropped because the machines took away paychecks from would-be consumers. The producer/consumer cycle is broke. The GDP potential has increased but not paychecks, and thus companies are reluctant to expand capacity. Inflation only tends to go up when capacity is reached. But bots increased the ceiling on capacity.
While GOP claims regulations are main reason for lack of hiring, honest CEO's will tell you lack of consumers is THE biggest bottleneck to expansion.
We need new economic theories, and countries/politicians brave enough to try them.
* Economies tend to be at their best when annual inflation runs above 2.2 percent. (Too high and inflationary spirals can be triggered. Thus about 2.3 is probably about where the best balance is.)
"High brow" programming has never proven itself in practice for multiple projects. There's never been a case where top-notch, highly-educated programmers are put into a single organization such that it consistently out-competes the "medium-brow" shops. They may be paid more than average, but in theory they'd be far more productive using high-brow techniques such that it overshadows their higher salaries.
Some bring up Paul Graham and his e-stores company, but that was a one-shot deal. Once the company became established it abandoned Lisp. Quick-to-market entrepreneurial may benefit from it, but I'm talking rank and file projects.
Related discussion:
http://wiki.c2.com/?IfFooIsSoG...
Assuming that's true, there are 50 or so "great ideas" on my desk. I don't have time to try them all for an extended period of time. Why should I assume FP is more fruitful than the others?
Bullshit! When I found benefits in something I was able to articulate and show realistic examples. Some of it turned out to be purely personal preference, but I say so if that's the case. My eyes and brain prefer certain things organized a certain way that doesn't always match other brains/eyes.
If it cannot be shown objectively, something is probably wrong on the claimer's side. Sorry, I find "can't explain" an anti-scientific copout. You should study benefit articulation over a long period until you finally "get it". Touche!
Ban all AI/robot predictions from Slashdot. Enough already!
I've yet to see realistic examples of improvements, at least for domains I work in. Those pushing FP either invent contrived "lab toy" circumstances where FP shines, use vague buzzwords that don't describe any concrete benefit, or merely expose the weakness of a particular language or API design (such as Java's poor OOP model).
If you want to convince people, show them realistic examples and explain the benefits in concrete and measurable terms. Is that asking too much?
They may say, "If you use it long enough, you'll finally get it"; but there are so many tools and ideas competing for our time that I'll have to ask for more up-front evidence, if you don't mind.
They are both in on it
But soy can cause allergic reactions and gas in some people. Saying it's a chicken sandwich when it's really a soy sandwich is selling something different than what's listed.
You see, that's the old annoying oligopoly set. How we have a new annoying oligopoly set.
My swamper can beat up your swamper
I like the fight: competition in action. I wish telecoms would bash each other over forced bundling, lousy reliability, lousy customer service, etc. etc. etc. etc.
I was mostly joking, as the emoticon apparently failed to show. Still, Perl is very "flexible" that way compared to most languages.
Put another way, if a hyper toddler or an angry President randomly bashed around the keyboard, the probability of the results "running" without explicit errors are probably higher in Perl than other common languages.
I've heard this called the "angry monkey metric" by some.
That's arguably different because enough Democrats also apposed him, often on the grounds of NIMBY per custody facilities. All Republicans want ACA replaced, they just don't agree on what the replacement should look like*.
And O did pass ACA and the stimulus package. T has signed no bill of significance so far except telecom URL snooping. Granted, it's still early in T's term, but GOP is divided on his other plans also.
* Actually, there's no free HC lunch: GOP will have to throw some demographics under the bus to make HC cheaper for others.
When T proclaimed, "Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated", I could hear the sound of 100-million face-palms. Foreheads all over had finger marks the next day.
Trump? Plan? Surely you jest.
McAfee slows and jams up lots of stuff at our org.
The cyber security team has used very aggressive McAfee settings. The security manager gets awards for security, but there is no anti-award for jamming productivity to counter. Thus, his incentive is to crank McAfee to 11. Productivity is somebody else's problem.
For example, McAfee is set to On Access scanning on every desktop and server, meaning it scans almost every file accessed. Java "compressed" files, such as JAR's take forever to de-compress and scan, often more than 2 minutes. Thus, anything that uses Java as its engine is almost useless.
One can request such files be white-listed on a case-by-case basis, but the security team is too bogged down to get to them in a timely manner, and they often use a narrow interpretation "to be safe" such that they miss some files, requiring multiple rounds of requests to get such apps use-able.
McAfee's scan logs don't give enough info to be useful for up-front white-listing. Most users stopped bothering and just avoid using Java-based apps, paying for the more expensive alternatives. They blame Java instead of McAfee because they don't know the difference. (Arguably it could be said that large compressed libraries are a bad idea on Java's part. I hope they rid that feature. Or McAfee could make its scanners more Java-friendly.)
On a more general level, performance consultants have looked at our slow systems and concluded we should get PC's with SSD's instead of disks. But there's (allegedly) no budget for that, so even new PC's are disk-based and McAfee and On Access scanning gradually eats them up over time as typical Windows time-bloat piles up. Thus, we go through PC's faster, and in the end DON'T save money by using disks (productivity aside).
And lately they install more security doo-dads from other companies. They don't talk much about them to keep them stealthy. Those just add slugs on top of snails.
We joke we don't get hacked because our slow systems make the hackers fall asleep waiting for response. Security through Snoozativity.
I guess I shouldn't entirely blame the fastidious security manager because breaches could cause real havoc at our org. But, resources are not allocated to deal with the downsides of such fastidious cyber security. That's the top boss's fault.
Same thing. Every string parses as valid code in Perl. Now whether it's "useful" code is another matter ;-)
That's all you need: mass synergy. Drink 10 cups of it a day. If that doesn't work, lodge some up your ... wait a sec, children around...
I have to partly disagree. Sometimes you have to experiment and road-test ideas. Many successful entrepreneurs will tell you that being nimble based on customer feedback and market trends is important.
When I hear "autopilot", I can't get those Airplane! scenes out of my head.
I don't like him outside of entertainment, and didn't vote for him.
However, give him credit for occasional good he does. Reward good behavior and dissuade bad behavior.
http://rs34.pbsrc.com/albums/d...
"Kinda go go Johnny B. Goodenough"