I think you misunderstood my point. The conversation is about replacing everyone, perhaps in the service of an elite few. The question is what do you do with people who remain without a purpose. The irony is that the strategy is self defeating for everyone involved. The economy would no-longer exist, and wealth would no-longer be a source of power. Perhaps it could be held up by brute force, but well... that force can be met with force in-kind. Ultimately its less stable than what we have and even the most devious (or fictional) Builderberger, Freemason, Illuminati, Rockefeller, etc would dream of taking it that far.
Also, I used the word purpose in a very literal sense. I wasn't talking about my family, health, etc. For example: say I existed in the Roaring 20s on the bottom of the totem pole in a factory somewhere - even in that hopeless situation, I have an income which can then be extracted by the company I work for at a premium at the company store, by rent seekers, etc.... keeping me in debt, keeping me bonded, etc, etc. It's a sad purpose, but there's a situation in which I'd exist for a reason - and that's to be a slave.
In this scenario, the slave situation has been solved by the elite some other way. The people that remain aren't useful as slaves by that point. And of course, it would take some serious government fuckery at levels never before seen for everything to descend to that level.
There's a lot of people who view themselves as moderately rich or influential that would have to also go under for your scenario. This would be a threat to them too. Our government kinda sucks, but I think it represents them to some degree at least. So I'm pretty confident that it won't go that far. Hell, with the government we've got these days, and the people voting, I'd wager more on an over-reaction to the automation threat than not.
Not sure why you're voted down. It's the truth. The industry favors performers over musicians. That's how they can have famous people who can't sing well and don't write their own music. All they do is follow choreography and look sexy.
If you have to pay your slaves, whats the point of creating them? And assuming you don't create them anymore, are you just going to let them procreate on their own? This is starting to get into Animatrix territory... I almost can't take the idea seriously.
Assuming the governments of the world don't become totally detached from reality, we will obviously be passing some laws if it seems like its getting to this point.
Don't we do all of this for survival purposes? If the development of such technology begins to hurt our ability to survive, what's the point? Who would develop the tech? Who would buy it? And ultimately, what government would allow it to get to that point?
I think one of two possibilities are possible. We will either get to the point the tech will find some equilibrium with the human economy, or we will get to the point that the government (especially if it remains a representative one) will step in and prevent further development of the tech. The outcome depends on the prevailing ideology of that country and just how bad it all gets. And even in the equilibrium scenario, I can see some grassroots pushback/rebellion. The only real winners in that case could be the super rich, and by that point people might be ready to shed blood over it.
Or maybe it won't be so dramatic. Poor working people managed to survive in the South before the 1860s. Do we really expect the machines of the future to outdo and be cheaper than the human slaves of the past? Menial labor is one thing... nobody really wants to do that anyway... but replacing the thinker seems kind of self defeating. Why are we even here if we're willing to replace everyone, including artists, engineers, and scientists with robots?
It's that pen. Wacom pen-tablets are not cheap, and what you have here is essentially a small Cintiq with a built-in computer.... which is why I bought it. The thing is a dream with Photoshop and Moi3D.
Sheesh. I'm sorry to hear that the UK is losing its educational channels. I grew up watching PBS here in the States. It was my favorite channel as a kid. It had Reading Rainbow, Arthur, Magic School-bus, and some other animated stuff I don't remember too well. I can't imagine what it's like to grow up and not have something like that.
As for the printing, I imagine that will solve itself. I know here in the States the college instructors have begun writing their own materials and giving them out for free or at a greatly reduced cost. Or in the case of my programming instructor - no book at all. Very few of them do this, but it can be a great relief when they do.
I suppose for grade school that'll be harder to change, but the internet and the tablet age is going to force that. Barnes and Noble's selling their Nook HD for ~$150. It can only get cheaper.
I'm not saying it can't have good intentions. One reason I'm not a libertarian is the fact that I believe that there really is a class war going on. It's only big media and big people that say it's not real.
I also recognize that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you start lobbying in mass for rules intended to hurt an opposing group it can come back upon you at a time when your group is weaker. Taken to the extreme it's mass rule and mass theft. Still.... in certain instances I must admit it makes sense. We just gotta not have that constant adversarial mindset with regards to public policy.
Because that's the only reason the internet is allowed to exist these days. Limitless communication between individuals hurts the economy and the country. It's bad for business, and if not for the fact that businesses took advantage of that too, they would have lobbied to shut it down long ago.
That's why the new filters being debated in the UK will block forums and educational sites as well as illegal content. The only thing of value in life is business, everything else is bad for business.
At least that's the logic I expect the elite who support this kind of bullshit to have.
Translation: We have to control commerce before the other guy does.
But I suppose that's what politics boils down to... each group jockeying for control over a market. You've got the early trappers who will lobby against rules on trapping so they can get an early pelt, and you've got the late trappers who will lobby for rules against early trapping so they can get a mature pelt.
I think simply being able and willing as a government to make such rules is the problem. People learn expect that rules can be made in favor of their particular group, and that's all they lobby for - like Rupert Murdoch.
I'd personally much rather see a natural fairness - early pelt trappers and a national broadband - than a contrived fairness: laws against them to "make things more fair".
Depends on the device. I own a Sega Genesis, a 22 year old machine, that I still play from time to time. It was made before the dawn of internet dependance, thus, as long as I have the game cartridges, I will be able to play the console.
An Xbox One or PS3 (or PC) may have some game you like that 22 years from now you won't be able to play because the support servers were shut down. Hell, the situation also covers content creation software like Photoshop CS2, which resulted in Adobe making a mess of things and accidentally releasing the un-DRM'd software to the general public. I doubt Microsoft will bother, 15 years from now many people will still care but the outcry wouldn't be great enough to prevent the death of the entire system. We are lucky to have managed that pre-emtively, but we'll have to live with the reality that some of the games and software that we buy simply have an end-date.
Never-mind what you think, or what you've experienced personally. We are here to let you know that:
Senator Smitty and his Export Labor Initiative is good.
Senator Smitty and his Export Labor Initiative is good.
Senator Smitty and his Export Labor Initiative is good.
Senator Smitty and his Export Labor Initiative is good.
Senator Smitty and his Export Labor Initiative is good.
Come election day, you will vote for Senator Smitty, and even if you don't, we'll have made sure 51% of everyone else has voted against their own interests.
My connection where I'm at currently will not allow me to watch the video, but I must say...
Some wrecks are due to something in the road or very near to it blocking your ability to see. If you want to turn left onto a busy street you have to be able to see a long ways down both ends of the street. Sometimes this is very difficult (a bush blocking visibility for a small car). When presented with this situation for the first time, a human driver might be able to pull forward just enough to see just far enough into the distance to safely merge with traffic. Later, the driver can avoid that intersection / parking-exit and use another with better visibility.
I doubt autonomous cars will have the same judgement and reflex capacity that we do. Some situations like the above are simple, but others require fast reflexes. Turning left on the same street from my favored intersection, I found myself just inches away from being obliterated by an SUV traveling 60 MPH (this is not an exageration, on this street the posted limit is 40, but the people always go 15 to 20 above that, factor in the fact that the other driver was trying to beat the light). It was an intersection with traffic lights, my turning light was green, and I waited the usual second or two before entering. The second I entered the intersection, I saw a large green blur and stopped. It didn't even register with me right away that I'd nearly been hit. I'm pretty sure an automated car using modern day computer vision (with all its bugs, resolution, and data speed) would have hit that car.
The work around would be to make all autonomous cars aware of other cars wirelessly with code similar to that of a multiplayer game - which, unless it's peer to peer, will involve a central server of some sort to handle all the requests and tracking. If done in this way, regular cars, motorcycles, and mopeds could not opt out. Since pedestrians and cyclists are *usually* slower moving, computer vision should be enough to detect them and react in time. Maybe we should expect there to be new laws in place to prevent cyclists from using certain down-hill streets and certain do-it-yourselfers from building unregistered and unequiped mopeds.
If you consider that for a second you'll realize that we could end up in a situation where everyone's where-abouts are monitored by the government in real-time, at all times, by necessity and no matter what kind of vehicle you're in. So they know your thoughts and associations in order to defend the nation against terrorism, and your location and daily routine in order to end crash fatalities. Great...
The minute you shoot a cop it's over. They will sick a drone to find you, then they will kill you. Even if you're in the moral right, good luck making it to court alive.
Maybe, but its probably this: Somebody knows somebody... quid pro quo. I pick you to make new voting machines, you donate to my campaign for re-election.
Slashdot Mirror
America is a country which values the right to have high capacity magazines for assault weapons over the freedom of speech.
The war on drugs didn't exactly help with our freedoms, why would a war on guns be any different?
I think you misunderstood my point. The conversation is about replacing everyone, perhaps in the service of an elite few. The question is what do you do with people who remain without a purpose. The irony is that the strategy is self defeating for everyone involved. The economy would no-longer exist, and wealth would no-longer be a source of power. Perhaps it could be held up by brute force, but well... that force can be met with force in-kind. Ultimately its less stable than what we have and even the most devious (or fictional) Builderberger, Freemason, Illuminati, Rockefeller, etc would dream of taking it that far.
Also, I used the word purpose in a very literal sense. I wasn't talking about my family, health, etc. For example: say I existed in the Roaring 20s on the bottom of the totem pole in a factory somewhere - even in that hopeless situation, I have an income which can then be extracted by the company I work for at a premium at the company store, by rent seekers, etc.... keeping me in debt, keeping me bonded, etc, etc. It's a sad purpose, but there's a situation in which I'd exist for a reason - and that's to be a slave.
In this scenario, the slave situation has been solved by the elite some other way. The people that remain aren't useful as slaves by that point. And of course, it would take some serious government fuckery at levels never before seen for everything to descend to that level.
There's a lot of people who view themselves as moderately rich or influential that would have to also go under for your scenario. This would be a threat to them too. Our government kinda sucks, but I think it represents them to some degree at least. So I'm pretty confident that it won't go that far. Hell, with the government we've got these days, and the people voting, I'd wager more on an over-reaction to the automation threat than not.
I'd expect something more like GEMA. "Your work is ours by default."
Not sure why you're voted down. It's the truth. The industry favors performers over musicians. That's how they can have famous people who can't sing well and don't write their own music. All they do is follow choreography and look sexy.
If you have to pay your slaves, whats the point of creating them? And assuming you don't create them anymore, are you just going to let them procreate on their own? This is starting to get into Animatrix territory... I almost can't take the idea seriously.
Assuming the governments of the world don't become totally detached from reality, we will obviously be passing some laws if it seems like its getting to this point.
Don't we do all of this for survival purposes? If the development of such technology begins to hurt our ability to survive, what's the point? Who would develop the tech? Who would buy it? And ultimately, what government would allow it to get to that point?
I think one of two possibilities are possible. We will either get to the point the tech will find some equilibrium with the human economy, or we will get to the point that the government (especially if it remains a representative one) will step in and prevent further development of the tech. The outcome depends on the prevailing ideology of that country and just how bad it all gets. And even in the equilibrium scenario, I can see some grassroots pushback/rebellion. The only real winners in that case could be the super rich, and by that point people might be ready to shed blood over it.
Or maybe it won't be so dramatic. Poor working people managed to survive in the South before the 1860s. Do we really expect the machines of the future to outdo and be cheaper than the human slaves of the past? Menial labor is one thing... nobody really wants to do that anyway... but replacing the thinker seems kind of self defeating. Why are we even here if we're willing to replace everyone, including artists, engineers, and scientists with robots?
This is their reasoning, yes. But how far should it go without some sort of challenge?
Was. The constitution is nothing more than a series of suggestions now.
US citizens are advised to flee the planet.
lol, I bought a mouse for my Surface Pro thinking I would use it... but I never do.
It's that pen. Wacom pen-tablets are not cheap, and what you have here is essentially a small Cintiq with a built-in computer.... which is why I bought it. The thing is a dream with Photoshop and Moi3D.
Wow. How is that legal!?
Sheesh. I'm sorry to hear that the UK is losing its educational channels. I grew up watching PBS here in the States. It was my favorite channel as a kid. It had Reading Rainbow, Arthur, Magic School-bus, and some other animated stuff I don't remember too well. I can't imagine what it's like to grow up and not have something like that.
As for the printing, I imagine that will solve itself. I know here in the States the college instructors have begun writing their own materials and giving them out for free or at a greatly reduced cost. Or in the case of my programming instructor - no book at all. Very few of them do this, but it can be a great relief when they do.
I suppose for grade school that'll be harder to change, but the internet and the tablet age is going to force that. Barnes and Noble's selling their Nook HD for ~$150. It can only get cheaper.
I'm not saying it can't have good intentions. One reason I'm not a libertarian is the fact that I believe that there really is a class war going on. It's only big media and big people that say it's not real.
I also recognize that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you start lobbying in mass for rules intended to hurt an opposing group it can come back upon you at a time when your group is weaker. Taken to the extreme it's mass rule and mass theft. Still.... in certain instances I must admit it makes sense. We just gotta not have that constant adversarial mindset with regards to public policy.
Because that's the only reason the internet is allowed to exist these days. Limitless communication between individuals hurts the economy and the country. It's bad for business, and if not for the fact that businesses took advantage of that too, they would have lobbied to shut it down long ago.
That's why the new filters being debated in the UK will block forums and educational sites as well as illegal content. The only thing of value in life is business, everything else is bad for business.
At least that's the logic I expect the elite who support this kind of bullshit to have.
Translation: We have to control commerce before the other guy does.
But I suppose that's what politics boils down to... each group jockeying for control over a market. You've got the early trappers who will lobby against rules on trapping so they can get an early pelt, and you've got the late trappers who will lobby for rules against early trapping so they can get a mature pelt.
I think simply being able and willing as a government to make such rules is the problem. People learn expect that rules can be made in favor of their particular group, and that's all they lobby for - like Rupert Murdoch.
I'd personally much rather see a natural fairness - early pelt trappers and a national broadband - than a contrived fairness: laws against them to "make things more fair".
Depends on the device. I own a Sega Genesis, a 22 year old machine, that I still play from time to time. It was made before the dawn of internet dependance, thus, as long as I have the game cartridges, I will be able to play the console.
An Xbox One or PS3 (or PC) may have some game you like that 22 years from now you won't be able to play because the support servers were shut down. Hell, the situation also covers content creation software like Photoshop CS2, which resulted in Adobe making a mess of things and accidentally releasing the un-DRM'd software to the general public. I doubt Microsoft will bother, 15 years from now many people will still care but the outcry wouldn't be great enough to prevent the death of the entire system. We are lucky to have managed that pre-emtively, but we'll have to live with the reality that some of the games and software that we buy simply have an end-date.
It's worth caring about, at least in principal.
Never-mind what you think, or what you've experienced personally. We are here to let you know that:
Senator Smitty and his Export Labor Initiative is good.
Senator Smitty and his Export Labor Initiative is good.
Senator Smitty and his Export Labor Initiative is good.
Senator Smitty and his Export Labor Initiative is good.
Senator Smitty and his Export Labor Initiative is good.
Come election day, you will vote for Senator Smitty, and even if you don't, we'll have made sure 51% of everyone else has voted against their own interests.
My connection where I'm at currently will not allow me to watch the video, but I must say...
Some wrecks are due to something in the road or very near to it blocking your ability to see. If you want to turn left onto a busy street you have to be able to see a long ways down both ends of the street. Sometimes this is very difficult (a bush blocking visibility for a small car). When presented with this situation for the first time, a human driver might be able to pull forward just enough to see just far enough into the distance to safely merge with traffic. Later, the driver can avoid that intersection / parking-exit and use another with better visibility.
I doubt autonomous cars will have the same judgement and reflex capacity that we do. Some situations like the above are simple, but others require fast reflexes. Turning left on the same street from my favored intersection, I found myself just inches away from being obliterated by an SUV traveling 60 MPH (this is not an exageration, on this street the posted limit is 40, but the people always go 15 to 20 above that, factor in the fact that the other driver was trying to beat the light). It was an intersection with traffic lights, my turning light was green, and I waited the usual second or two before entering. The second I entered the intersection, I saw a large green blur and stopped. It didn't even register with me right away that I'd nearly been hit. I'm pretty sure an automated car using modern day computer vision (with all its bugs, resolution, and data speed) would have hit that car.
The work around would be to make all autonomous cars aware of other cars wirelessly with code similar to that of a multiplayer game - which, unless it's peer to peer, will involve a central server of some sort to handle all the requests and tracking. If done in this way, regular cars, motorcycles, and mopeds could not opt out. Since pedestrians and cyclists are *usually* slower moving, computer vision should be enough to detect them and react in time. Maybe we should expect there to be new laws in place to prevent cyclists from using certain down-hill streets and certain do-it-yourselfers from building unregistered and unequiped mopeds.
If you consider that for a second you'll realize that we could end up in a situation where everyone's where-abouts are monitored by the government in real-time, at all times, by necessity and no matter what kind of vehicle you're in. So they know your thoughts and associations in order to defend the nation against terrorism, and your location and daily routine in order to end crash fatalities. Great...
Eventually those unpatched systems will be unable to get the job done.
Lindows!
The minute you shoot a cop it's over. They will sick a drone to find you, then they will kill you. Even if you're in the moral right, good luck making it to court alive.
Microsoft is actually pretty good about timely patches.
What, you're not allowed to talk about union workers?
Maybe, but its probably this: Somebody knows somebody... quid pro quo. I pick you to make new voting machines, you donate to my campaign for re-election.