On a semi-side note, other AI co's should sue IBM for their Watson ads because the ads make it sound like Watson is actually carrying on a conversation. It's all pre-scripted by humans, though.
Just hire 50% genetic females and 50% male cross-dressers, and don't anybody who is who. Technically it would then be balanced hiring. Clothes are just clothes, a costume.
In general, I believe most agree it's better if machines do repetitive and boring work. However, the political and societal implications are huge and complicated, and nobody trusts the US political system to adjust properly.
Thus, the reason for "keeping things as they are" may not be future-phobia per se, but rather politi-phobia, which is probably a legitimate concern. The USA political system is a bleeped mess right now in which many law makers would rather shut down government instead of compromise.
The other known issues include:
1. The unemployed and welfare recipients are considered pariahs in our society.
2. The rich lobby heavily to keep their growing share of the wealth, and they have a lot of money and power to do that thoroughly and intensely.
3. Idle people tend to commit more crime and gain drug addiction. Maybe some form of part-time "work-fare" which involves things like helping the elderly, cleaning up litter, landscaping gov't buildings and yards, tutoring school kids, day care, jury duty, etc.
4. More money will be needed for law-enforcement and work-fare management, due to #3, which could create more nasty budget fights in Wash. DC.
We just may have to wait for the countries Bernie Sanders talks about to show us up so badly that it's obvious to all USA politics is doing it wrong. Embarrassment is sometimes the most powerful motivator.
Time to invent a new gizmo to generate a new bubble. Smart-phones are too mainstream, and the iWatch hasn't quite caught on. iNoseRing, or something. I'm partial to the "Get Smart" shoe-phone idea. iSocks?
It's enforcement that's the issue, not so much regulations. If drones are seen as a big potential threat to airplanes, then more measures would be taken to prevent encounters.
It shouldn't be the FBI's job to lobby for or against policies with such wide political implications. It's conflict of interest, and outside of their role as part of the Executive Branch. They are to carry out of the orders of the other branches and formal political process, NOT to make or pressure policy.
They can state their preference on political issues as they relate to crime fighting and prevention, but to aggressively push for a stance or policy is another thing.
Reminds me of the late 1990's when there were too many unemployed ex-Soviet nuclear engineers, which worried a lot of people. It may be where Kimmy J. got some of his toys. There are certain kinds of specialists a country shouldn't want idle or broke en-mass. Give them a stipend, for goodness sake, or maybe some make-work little projects to keep them busy.
Politics and humanity's future aside, this election is turning out to be THE most exciting one of my life-time.
In terms of entertainment value, I never thought they'd top Palin. I was flat wrong. She was just the warm-up act.
And it's not just Trump. Sanders adds a different spin, kind of like the grumpy Lorax who only comes out of the wood-work when things get too screwy, shaking his finger: "BEWARE!"
Dr. Seuss couldn't script a zanier election. (He'd run out of ink for Trump's hair anyhow.)
Outsourcing, offshoring, automation, inequality, leaky borders, and a confused mid-east together seem to be making a lot of people very nervous, giving non-traditional candidates attention they otherwise wouldn't get. The world is changing and the old ways of viewing things politically don't seem to apply anymore. The electorate is ready to experiment.
I think these quasi-monopolies should all be destroyed and every platform should be forced to be open...
But you know what they say: coordinating OSS is like herding cats. Sometimes dominant companies are needed to form and enforce quasi-standards. I believe there's a happy medium somewhere between an MS-style monopoly and 40 or so OS distros that require too much tinkering to work with existing software and tools.
OSS versus "corporate" sometimes reminds me of "capitalism versus socialism". The best systems seem to be a compromise between the two. The extremes of either end are highly unpleasant (for most).
Yes, I am raining on the idealism parade here, and going yin/yang/balance on you.
What "free trade" has done is to cheapen the mediocre and enrich the cream of crop, or at least the owners of the cream of the crop.
For example, there are only so many people who can be tested in the position of CEO because there are only so many CEO positions. Being a "vice CEO" is not a good enough test or "training".
The few who have success or show promise are then highly sought-after, and their compensation package is bid way up. It's high-end case of it takes experience to get experience. Only so many get a chance to show what they can do as CEO, making the pool of good CEO's small, and thus prized.
We see a similar pattern in internationalization of the NBA (pro basketball): big-name stars like Kobe and LeBron James become international stars who bring in revenue from all over the world.
They can leverage their star power and wealth to end up with the best coaches on the best teams with the best role players. (Although, LeBron has chosen to personally help his hometown team of late instead of chase big markets.)
But the low and middle-level players face more international competition, meaning fewer slots for citizens. There may be a few more franchises to work for due to internationalism revenue, but not nearly enough to offset the increased foreign competition.
Thus, the stars and owners get richer and gain leverage, but the rest of the players simply face more international competition for limited slots as international players are recruited. Middle-level USA citizen players are essentially being replaced.
The middle class is thus squeezed and the benefits of internationalization flow to the top.
I know that some of the "extra" things I do at work won't improve my paycheck one bit. And also I sometimes open my big mouth and point out bad practices that are protected by political BS. Sometimes I get quietly reprimanded for such, even.
But I feel better at the end of the day for doing them. I feel I made the world slightly better and more efficient, even if it lowers my pay in the end.
The feeling of making a positive difference sometimes trumps pay.
What's a "socialist propaganda poster"? Socialism is an economic system. You seem to be talking about a political system that happened to be using socialism.
Also I did not mention socialism in my original post.
Therefore, I'm not sure what your point is, other then perhaps those in power try to convince those not in power to act in certain ways regardless of economic and/or political system.
Slashdot Mirror
On a semi-side note, other AI co's should sue IBM for their Watson ads because the ads make it sound like Watson is actually carrying on a conversation. It's all pre-scripted by humans, though.
Let me rework the first sentence:
Just hire 50% genetic females and 50% genetic male cross-dressers, and don't tell anybody who is who.
Just hire 50% genetic females and 50% male cross-dressers, and don't anybody who is who. Technically it would then be balanced hiring. Clothes are just clothes, a costume.
In general, I believe most agree it's better if machines do repetitive and boring work. However, the political and societal implications are huge and complicated, and nobody trusts the US political system to adjust properly.
Thus, the reason for "keeping things as they are" may not be future-phobia per se, but rather politi-phobia, which is probably a legitimate concern. The USA political system is a bleeped mess right now in which many law makers would rather shut down government instead of compromise.
The other known issues include:
1. The unemployed and welfare recipients are considered pariahs in our society.
2. The rich lobby heavily to keep their growing share of the wealth, and they have a lot of money and power to do that thoroughly and intensely.
3. Idle people tend to commit more crime and gain drug addiction. Maybe some form of part-time "work-fare" which involves things like helping the elderly, cleaning up litter, landscaping gov't buildings and yards, tutoring school kids, day care, jury duty, etc.
4. More money will be needed for law-enforcement and work-fare management, due to #3, which could create more nasty budget fights in Wash. DC.
We just may have to wait for the countries Bernie Sanders talks about to show us up so badly that it's obvious to all USA politics is doing it wrong. Embarrassment is sometimes the most powerful motivator.
no, that's iWife.
Just redirect some asteroids here to get rich quick.
So what if we lose a couple of dinosaurs. They just stink and stomp things anyhow.
In the late 90's, that country had confusionism.
Time to invent a new gizmo to generate a new bubble. Smart-phones are too mainstream, and the iWatch hasn't quite caught on. iNoseRing, or something. I'm partial to the "Get Smart" shoe-phone idea. iSocks?
We'll probably see more snowballs in Congress.
It's enforcement that's the issue, not so much regulations. If drones are seen as a big potential threat to airplanes, then more measures would be taken to prevent encounters.
If you relax the rules based on a "typical" drone, it may encourage jerks to put chemicals or explosives in one.
I've seen no evidence his executive orders are more numerous or more intense than prior prez's.
It shouldn't be the FBI's job to lobby for or against policies with such wide political implications. It's conflict of interest, and outside of their role as part of the Executive Branch. They are to carry out of the orders of the other branches and formal political process, NOT to make or pressure policy.
They can state their preference on political issues as they relate to crime fighting and prevention, but to aggressively push for a stance or policy is another thing.
Reminds me of the late 1990's when there were too many unemployed ex-Soviet nuclear engineers, which worried a lot of people. It may be where Kimmy J. got some of his toys. There are certain kinds of specialists a country shouldn't want idle or broke en-mass. Give them a stipend, for goodness sake, or maybe some make-work little projects to keep them busy.
Isn't Louisiana considered the most humid US state? (Although, I imagine there's a lot of local variation.)
Trump/Seuss: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
(Distorted vid, probably to avoid copyright cops)
Yet another example of the big guys screwing the little guys.
Politics and humanity's future aside, this election is turning out to be THE most exciting one of my life-time.
In terms of entertainment value, I never thought they'd top Palin. I was flat wrong. She was just the warm-up act.
And it's not just Trump. Sanders adds a different spin, kind of like the grumpy Lorax who only comes out of the wood-work when things get too screwy, shaking his finger: "BEWARE!"
Dr. Seuss couldn't script a zanier election. (He'd run out of ink for Trump's hair anyhow.)
Outsourcing, offshoring, automation, inequality, leaky borders, and a confused mid-east together seem to be making a lot of people very nervous, giving non-traditional candidates attention they otherwise wouldn't get. The world is changing and the old ways of viewing things politically don't seem to apply anymore. The electorate is ready to experiment.
But you know what they say: coordinating OSS is like herding cats. Sometimes dominant companies are needed to form and enforce quasi-standards. I believe there's a happy medium somewhere between an MS-style monopoly and 40 or so OS distros that require too much tinkering to work with existing software and tools.
OSS versus "corporate" sometimes reminds me of "capitalism versus socialism". The best systems seem to be a compromise between the two. The extremes of either end are highly unpleasant (for most).
Yes, I am raining on the idealism parade here, and going yin/yang/balance on you.
What "free trade" has done is to cheapen the mediocre and enrich the cream of crop, or at least the owners of the cream of the crop.
For example, there are only so many people who can be tested in the position of CEO because there are only so many CEO positions. Being a "vice CEO" is not a good enough test or "training".
The few who have success or show promise are then highly sought-after, and their compensation package is bid way up. It's high-end case of it takes experience to get experience. Only so many get a chance to show what they can do as CEO, making the pool of good CEO's small, and thus prized.
We see a similar pattern in internationalization of the NBA (pro basketball): big-name stars like Kobe and LeBron James become international stars who bring in revenue from all over the world.
They can leverage their star power and wealth to end up with the best coaches on the best teams with the best role players. (Although, LeBron has chosen to personally help his hometown team of late instead of chase big markets.)
But the low and middle-level players face more international competition, meaning fewer slots for citizens. There may be a few more franchises to work for due to internationalism revenue, but not nearly enough to offset the increased foreign competition.
Thus, the stars and owners get richer and gain leverage, but the rest of the players simply face more international competition for limited slots as international players are recruited. Middle-level USA citizen players are essentially being replaced.
The middle class is thus squeezed and the benefits of internationalization flow to the top.
If you do get married and/or have kids, throw your current rule-book out the door and stomp up and down on it.
I know that some of the "extra" things I do at work won't improve my paycheck one bit. And also I sometimes open my big mouth and point out bad practices that are protected by political BS. Sometimes I get quietly reprimanded for such, even.
But I feel better at the end of the day for doing them. I feel I made the world slightly better and more efficient, even if it lowers my pay in the end.
The feeling of making a positive difference sometimes trumps pay.
I was also wondering why they are just focusing on base 10. You may notice other interesting patterns if you study other bases.
You must not be married.
What's a "socialist propaganda poster"? Socialism is an economic system. You seem to be talking about a political system that happened to be using socialism.
Also I did not mention socialism in my original post.
Therefore, I'm not sure what your point is, other then perhaps those in power try to convince those not in power to act in certain ways regardless of economic and/or political system.