In the worst case, you do a front-loader with self-cast lead bullets and powder from firecrackers.
I'm curious. What are you going to do with that muzzle-loader on a drone?
Is it for self-defense or are you planning on taking out some police or marines on a military base? Or maybe you're planning on doing some aerial coon hunting with your drone with a handgun? If you want to "keep authorities under control" wouldn't a truck with a bomb made from fertilizer in front of a Federal building be more of what you're looking for?
Seriously, I want to know how you're going to keep authorities under control with your firearms. Please enlighten us.
Fortunately, every time you equip a worker a more powerful tool, you increase the value of her labor
Let me stop you right there. Robots are not intended to be tools for workers. They're intended to be tools for management.
You don't seem to realize that robots are qualitatively different from "just another tool on the workbench". They're not like moving from a treadle to an electric sewing machine. They're meant to make the operator unnecessary.
The real lulz come from Cis-Gendered White Males who are self proclaimed feminists and nice guys trying to get that SJW pussy. Everyone else is just easy targets, so very little lulz to be had.
So let's take a walk over to the GamerGate clubhouse and see if the topics are about "cis-gendered white males" or Brianna Wu, Zoe Quinn, and other women and minorities.
Let's not play. The reason you're in this conversation is because "Brianna Wu" was in the title of the article.
But you missed one huge thing - Lulz come from everyone. To keep myself restricted to lulz from women, gays, and other minorities would not be as satisfactory.
But I thought the movement was all about ethics in journalism. At least you're provisionally honest about your motives.
I do go out of my way to call people on their bullshit
You sound exactly like the social justice warriors. You're out there righting wrongs, especially when those wrongs are from women, gays and other minorities.
Because that's just what the Batman does, amirite?
Disallowing people from driving themselves around would indeed create a lot of jobs in the taxi industry, and at the same time, would be awful for the economy in general.
NOBODY WANTS TO DISALLOW PEOPLE FROM DRIVING THEMSELVES AROUND.
I'm sorry to have to shout, but there seems to be something plugging up a few ears. There is a difference between killing off the value of existing workers' labor and some fantasy where a technology is "disallowed" and suddenly new shitty jobs are created.
And when I say "shitty jobs" I do so from experience. I drove a taxi two years in Chicago and two years in NYC during my graduate studies. It is a shitty job.
And robots are going to make shitty jobs shittier because they will pay less. Nothing to be done about it, because as we have all learned, the economic elite always get what they want.
However, be aware: as more jobs become automated, you should be prepared for a much bigger welfare state. Not because necessarily there will be so many more people out of work, but because the people that do work will make so much less. It's already happening, in fact. Because, see, we live in a society where a person's worth is measured entirely by how hard they work to enrich someone else.
When I was an undergraduate at the University of Chicago, I attended lectures by Milton Friedman. Like all economists, he was bigger on anecdote than evidence. I do remember something he said at the very first lecture, though. "Economics is the study of scarcity". And the things that will become scarcest in a robot economy are well-paying working class jobs.
Personally, I'm retired and I don't give a shit. My daughter's got her PhD now in a field where robots cannot replace the humans for another 75 years. But be warned. The robot economy will not usher in a golden age as long as late-stage capitalism is the order of the day.
If you don't want Neil or his music, he's done you no injury. If you are mad at him continually suggesting that the digital formats we're using are inadequate, or that your playback stuff is plebian and lame, you should tell him to go make his own. Oh, wait, he did!
I think part of the anger comes from the fact that it makes people really really mad when artists decide (for whatever personal reasons) to leave money on the table.
My guess is that there wouldn't be this level of anger if Young had just announced he was pulling his music from Spotify. But mess with Apple? That's simply beyond the pale for millennials.
I am surprised that she ever returns to the US and risks being arrested for aiding and abetting the theft of US government property.
So, you know the evidence against her better than the authorities? You think if there was enough to charge her they'd let her go every single fucking time?
People such as her walk a fine line.
And thank god that they do, otherwise we wouldn't know what kind of sleazy bullshit our country's doing.
You might be OK living in a country with ubiquitous surveillance and no Fourth Amendment, but there are still a significant number of Americans who are not.
It's ironic that Snowden ended up in the country most likely responsible for wiretapping the US Embassy.
You don't know as much about the entire Snowden saga if you think the reason he ended up in Russia was anything but the United States pulling his passport while he was on a layover in Russia on his way to Bolivia. If you don't have the initiative to find these things out for yourself, you should keep your obeisance to a regime that no longer recognizes your rights to yourself.
If you are a citizen of the United States, no one has the authority to bar you from entry into any one of the United States, etc.
They didn't bar Ms Poitras from entering the country. They just detained her, harassed her for hours, and then let her go because clearly they have no evidence that she ever broke a law.
The administration is still not sure if Snowden got the N.S.A. files on Obama's birth and those clumsy Hawaiian "documents".
I'm not convinced it's even "the administration" doing these things to Ms Poitras. More likely, it's our Military/Intelligence apparatus that has existed outside of civilian government oversight.
When President Trump takes over, we'll see if journalists stop getting hassled. What do you think?
Avoiding the active criminals is a good way to avoid being caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Laura Poitras was detained by the US every time she flew. How is a journalist, traveling by herself, in the "wrong place at the wrong time"?
Remember, every time she was detained, she was just detained and then eventually let go after being hassled. If the government has evidence that she's committed a crime, they would have charged her. Instead, they're just harassing a journalist who has embarrassed them.
If you want to say that embarrassing the government should be a crime, then that's a whole different discussion.
So how is this person like a defense attorney exactly?
This person is actually a little more important than a defense attorney. It's her job to tell people what their government is doing. And by all accounts (except the government) she's doing an excellent job.
I'm agreeing with it. Every definition of "ethics" includes mention of morality.
Hatred, harassment, exploitation can in no circumstances be considered moral. If someone is trying to support ethics by defending immoral behavior, they're doing it wrong.
It is absolutely about ethics. The question is, is it more ethical to preserve unencumbered freedom of expression on your site or to prevent a radical few from using your platform to harm others?
ethics eTHiks/ noun 1. moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior. "Judeo-Christian ethics" synonyms: moral code, morals, morality, values, rights and wrongs, principles, ideals, standards (of behavior), value system, virtues, dictates of conscience "your so-called newspaper is clearly not burdened by a sense of ethics"
I guess to some people here, hating fat people or minorities is moral as hell.
I would argue that if the places that exist to be heard are so small that they are barely noticed, that is an effective stifling of free speech.
That is the stupidest goddamn argument I've seen here since 8am.
At most, the Founding Fathers could speak to a relatively small roomful of people. Without PA systems, maybe a couple of hundred people at most. They would print pamphlets on hot type printers with cranks and hand them out. How many people you think those pamphlets got to?
If you have something to say, and your message is important and resonates with others, it will spread. If you're shitposting on/r/coontown, don't be surprised when "the masses" start to walk away from you.
What is often left out of these discussions, however, is the pervasive nature of corporate control over speech in the 'real' world (as well as the virtual). Corporations (and rich individuals) own newspapers (which trumpet *their* voice) TV stations (which do the same). The space for the mass dissemination of people's voices is small, and relegated to small groups, public meetings and protests (often barely tolerated by our democratic representatives).
The space for mass dissemination of people's voices has always been small. How many people do you think got to see Ben Franklin's or Thomas Jefferson's speeches?
You have a right to say whatever you want. There is no constitutional (or natural) right for your voice to be disseminated to the masses. You can always start your own newspaper, or do what the Founders did and print pamphlets on your ink jet printer. Though I'm pretty sure the Founders only had dot matrix.
It's possible that "venting" dangerous desires in a controlled setting prevents people from acting on them, but it seems equally possible that it could lead to the escalation of those desires through exposure to new fantasies and the support of like-minded people.
Hold on a second. That is nothing more than a general statement of this:
"We're talking about what [cars] have done to existing [horse buggy builders]."
Buggy builders were the first auto builders, so no, that's not the case. I'll bet that, adjusted for inflation, the early auto workers made more than they did as buggy makers.
We're not talking about a situation where workers are moved from one industry to another. We're talking about making workers labor less valuable across entire sectors of the economy.
The point is that we should do Science for Science sake.
I will stipulate that Science could be seen as an exception to my rule, though we have plenty of proof that Science makes a large percentage of human lives better over human history. So it's not really an exception at all.
But this robot story is not about Science. It's about profit and late-stage, post-human capitalism.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm curious. What are you going to do with that muzzle-loader on a drone?
Is it for self-defense or are you planning on taking out some police or marines on a military base? Or maybe you're planning on doing some aerial coon hunting with your drone with a handgun? If you want to "keep authorities under control" wouldn't a truck with a bomb made from fertilizer in front of a Federal building be more of what you're looking for?
Seriously, I want to know how you're going to keep authorities under control with your firearms. Please enlighten us.
And drones with fricking lasers are the first step to taking back our country.
We can in fact go back, but we don't because of the Nazi base up there.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades....
Let me stop you right there. Robots are not intended to be tools for workers. They're intended to be tools for management.
You don't seem to realize that robots are qualitatively different from "just another tool on the workbench". They're not like moving from a treadle to an electric sewing machine. They're meant to make the operator unnecessary.
So let's take a walk over to the GamerGate clubhouse and see if the topics are about "cis-gendered white males" or Brianna Wu, Zoe Quinn, and other women and minorities.
Let's not play. The reason you're in this conversation is because "Brianna Wu" was in the title of the article.
But I thought the movement was all about ethics in journalism. At least you're provisionally honest about your motives.
You sound exactly like the social justice warriors. You're out there righting wrongs, especially when those wrongs are from women, gays and other minorities.
Because that's just what the Batman does, amirite?
NOBODY WANTS TO DISALLOW PEOPLE FROM DRIVING THEMSELVES AROUND.
I'm sorry to have to shout, but there seems to be something plugging up a few ears. There is a difference between killing off the value of existing workers' labor and some fantasy where a technology is "disallowed" and suddenly new shitty jobs are created.
And when I say "shitty jobs" I do so from experience. I drove a taxi two years in Chicago and two years in NYC during my graduate studies. It is a shitty job.
And robots are going to make shitty jobs shittier because they will pay less. Nothing to be done about it, because as we have all learned, the economic elite always get what they want.
However, be aware: as more jobs become automated, you should be prepared for a much bigger welfare state. Not because necessarily there will be so many more people out of work, but because the people that do work will make so much less. It's already happening, in fact. Because, see, we live in a society where a person's worth is measured entirely by how hard they work to enrich someone else.
When I was an undergraduate at the University of Chicago, I attended lectures by Milton Friedman. Like all economists, he was bigger on anecdote than evidence. I do remember something he said at the very first lecture, though. "Economics is the study of scarcity". And the things that will become scarcest in a robot economy are well-paying working class jobs.
Personally, I'm retired and I don't give a shit. My daughter's got her PhD now in a field where robots cannot replace the humans for another 75 years. But be warned. The robot economy will not usher in a golden age as long as late-stage capitalism is the order of the day.
I think part of the anger comes from the fact that it makes people really really mad when artists decide (for whatever personal reasons) to leave money on the table.
My guess is that there wouldn't be this level of anger if Young had just announced he was pulling his music from Spotify. But mess with Apple? That's simply beyond the pale for millennials.
So, you know the evidence against her better than the authorities? You think if there was enough to charge her they'd let her go every single fucking time?
And thank god that they do, otherwise we wouldn't know what kind of sleazy bullshit our country's doing.
You might be OK living in a country with ubiquitous surveillance and no Fourth Amendment, but there are still a significant number of Americans who are not.
You don't know as much about the entire Snowden saga if you think the reason he ended up in Russia was anything but the United States pulling his passport while he was on a layover in Russia on his way to Bolivia. If you don't have the initiative to find these things out for yourself, you should keep your obeisance to a regime that no longer recognizes your rights to yourself.
They didn't bar Ms Poitras from entering the country. They just detained her, harassed her for hours, and then let her go because clearly they have no evidence that she ever broke a law.
I'm not convinced it's even "the administration" doing these things to Ms Poitras. More likely, it's our Military/Intelligence apparatus that has existed outside of civilian government oversight.
When President Trump takes over, we'll see if journalists stop getting hassled. What do you think?
Laura Poitras was detained by the US every time she flew. How is a journalist, traveling by herself, in the "wrong place at the wrong time"?
Remember, every time she was detained, she was just detained and then eventually let go after being hassled. If the government has evidence that she's committed a crime, they would have charged her. Instead, they're just harassing a journalist who has embarrassed them.
If you want to say that embarrassing the government should be a crime, then that's a whole different discussion.
This person is actually a little more important than a defense attorney. It's her job to tell people what their government is doing. And by all accounts (except the government) she's doing an excellent job.
I'm agreeing with it. Every definition of "ethics" includes mention of morality.
Hatred, harassment, exploitation can in no circumstances be considered moral. If someone is trying to support ethics by defending immoral behavior, they're doing it wrong.
ethics eTHiks/
noun
1.
moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior.
"Judeo-Christian ethics"
synonyms: moral code, morals, morality, values, rights and wrongs, principles, ideals, standards (of behavior), value system, virtues, dictates of conscience
"your so-called newspaper is clearly not burdened by a sense of ethics"
I guess to some people here, hating fat people or minorities is moral as hell.
That is the stupidest goddamn argument I've seen here since 8am.
At most, the Founding Fathers could speak to a relatively small roomful of people. Without PA systems, maybe a couple of hundred people at most. They would print pamphlets on hot type printers with cranks and hand them out. How many people you think those pamphlets got to?
If you have something to say, and your message is important and resonates with others, it will spread. If you're shitposting on /r/coontown, don't be surprised when "the masses" start to walk away from you.
The space for mass dissemination of people's voices has always been small. How many people do you think got to see Ben Franklin's or Thomas Jefferson's speeches?
You have a right to say whatever you want. There is no constitutional (or natural) right for your voice to be disseminated to the masses. You can always start your own newspaper, or do what the Founders did and print pamphlets on your ink jet printer. Though I'm pretty sure the Founders only had dot matrix.
Reddit is making it pretty clear that they're OK with you walking away.
Escalate like this?
http://betanews.com/wp-content...
This story is about Reddit, not the government. If Reddit decides to block /r/coontown, it doesn't actually make being racist illegal.
Nobody is going to take away your God given right to hate. Don't worry.
But it's their parents that have the purchasing power.
And "Mom, I saw this great thing on /r/FatPeopleHate. Can you buy it for me?" is not going to fly in a lot of homes.
Trust me, do something more important, like organize your sock drawer.
Buggy builders were the first auto builders, so no, that's not the case. I'll bet that, adjusted for inflation, the early auto workers made more than they did as buggy makers.
We're not talking about a situation where workers are moved from one industry to another. We're talking about making workers labor less valuable across entire sectors of the economy.
How is it "automated" if you're the one doing the driving?
I will stipulate that Science could be seen as an exception to my rule, though we have plenty of proof that Science makes a large percentage of human lives better over human history. So it's not really an exception at all.
But this robot story is not about Science. It's about profit and late-stage, post-human capitalism.
I appreciate your post, though.