Seriously. I have never shared a single fucking thing off of these links in my life. I don't think ANYONE with any kind of real education has. Save that shit for people who browse pinterest and etsy.
Resentment comes about due to one human violating another's values. With AI, the programming IS the values, so they can't resent them any more than you can resent great sex with the person you consider to be most attractive with no strings attached.
You are thinking of sharecropping, which can still be done (I know people who do it). Also, there are ALWAYS jobs at farms. It's just that the work is hard and the pay is low. But you can certainly survive off it if you are willing to live like your great great grandparents.
You can still do that as there are plenty of landowners with idle land and farmers always need laborers, but you have to deal with the same problems they did back then (ie poverty as a result of low productivity and backbreaking labor), except that you have all the world's knowledge at your fingertips so unlike them, you won't just be digging in the dust.
That's not how economics works though. Worst case scenario is that there is an economic partition, with a human economy and a robot economy. People will survive in the human economy until the get enough capital to build their own ever cheaper bootstrapping robot. It won't be more than a few iterations of Moore's Law before EVERYONE has one, and is now in the super rich class.
It wasn't caused by technology, but rather by central bank redistribution of wealth. Technological advance has just allowed it to go on for 20-30 years longer than normal, because it lets us do more with less.
Note that you only heard the basest concept and just waved your hands and said that it wouldn't work. Monarchists thought the same of Democracy.
No, the incentive is that when they leave the geographical region where their cut-rate social insurance will cover them, they can be murdered and cannibalized for their organs and meat without recourse. Continued life is the strongest of all incentives.
It really doesn't. Anarchy is NOT a synonym for chaos, as much as some like to paint it so. Rather, Anarchy simply means that men rule themselves via VOLUNTARY interactions. Involuntary interactions are countered by force.
I am reminded of the people who think that freedom of speech means freedom from the consequences of speech. Such positions are asinine.
Yes, and that is the point. She showed us that it was all a scam. But we refused to learn the lesson for so long that now that failure threatens to destroy the entire nation.
Saturated fats have actually been found to be perfectly healthy. This is at the core of the so-called "French Paradox". Everything we thought we knew about macronutrition was straight up fucking WRONG. Fat==good. Carbs==bad. Carbs make you gain weight. Fat makes you lose it. There is a reason Americans have been getting so fat--it is because we have been lied to, and we swallowed those lies, and swallowed and swallowed until we wound up drowning in our own blubber.
He mean National Socialism. In this case, they aren't forcing the people to pay for health care via taxation or money debasement, they are forcing them to buy a product. That is straight up Nazi policy right there, though one of the less well-known aspects of it.
It really isn't. You are several years out of date (and decades behind Atkins). The benefits of high fat, low carb diets are well known and widely accepted. My health problems pretty much all vanished when I went on it, came back after I got off of it, and went away when I got back on it again. Studies back up my experience.
There are ideas out there for free market "jails" where incentives are set such that people who repeatedly commit crimes will have powerful incentives to stay there, but that requires massive change on a societal level (including replacing government with social insurance policies). Absent such change, I would say that jail is for people who take freedom away from others, by hurting or killing them, defrauding them, stealing from them, etc. Governments are typically the ones curtailing freedom the most overall, but criminals often curtail the rights of a single individual much more than the government, and as such, they need to be curtailed as well.
If I were president, I would actually immediately shut down most jails, as they are full of people who committed victimless "crimes" like possessing drugs.
Yo, I disagree. Most people, rather than supporting the freedom of others, want other people to be forced to agree with their own views. But that isn't freedom.
Words have meaning. Those who attempt to take away the meaning of words should be exposed to the full force of an outraged society. They attempt to win arguments through redefinition, often to double meaning, ie Orwellian doublethink. This is bad.
Both liberals and conservatives are rubes, both have been taken in by the same people, to disastrous ends.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously. I have never shared a single fucking thing off of these links in my life. I don't think ANYONE with any kind of real education has. Save that shit for people who browse pinterest and etsy.
If you love state provided services so much, why don't you move to Cuba where you will be "taken care of". Or NoKo, for that matter.
Yes, that is literally the way it should be.
And people benefit from robbing banks too. Doesn't mean you should legalize it, or worse, have the government do it as a matter of policy.
Wow, such desperation. When you are drowning, do you machine gun the lifeboats around you?
No, I don't think you are desperate at all, but rather comfortable in your current habits.
THAT IS NOT HOW PROGRAMMING WORKS.
/Morbo voice.
Resentment comes about due to one human violating another's values. With AI, the programming IS the values, so they can't resent them any more than you can resent great sex with the person you consider to be most attractive with no strings attached.
"Friendly" is a technical term in this case.
Charity is plutocracy?
You are thinking of sharecropping, which can still be done (I know people who do it). Also, there are ALWAYS jobs at farms. It's just that the work is hard and the pay is low. But you can certainly survive off it if you are willing to live like your great great grandparents.
You can still do that as there are plenty of landowners with idle land and farmers always need laborers, but you have to deal with the same problems they did back then (ie poverty as a result of low productivity and backbreaking labor), except that you have all the world's knowledge at your fingertips so unlike them, you won't just be digging in the dust.
That's not how economics works though. Worst case scenario is that there is an economic partition, with a human economy and a robot economy. People will survive in the human economy until the get enough capital to build their own ever cheaper bootstrapping robot. It won't be more than a few iterations of Moore's Law before EVERYONE has one, and is now in the super rich class.
It wasn't caused by technology, but rather by central bank redistribution of wealth. Technological advance has just allowed it to go on for 20-30 years longer than normal, because it lets us do more with less.
Note that you only heard the basest concept and just waved your hands and said that it wouldn't work. Monarchists thought the same of Democracy.
No, the incentive is that when they leave the geographical region where their cut-rate social insurance will cover them, they can be murdered and cannibalized for their organs and meat without recourse. Continued life is the strongest of all incentives.
It really doesn't. Anarchy is NOT a synonym for chaos, as much as some like to paint it so. Rather, Anarchy simply means that men rule themselves via VOLUNTARY interactions. Involuntary interactions are countered by force.
I am reminded of the people who think that freedom of speech means freedom from the consequences of speech. Such positions are asinine.
It means there is a gun in your face, or a threat of a gun in your face.
Fail to pay your IRS fines and see what happens. HINT: the IRS now employs NUMEROUS SWAT teams.
No it isn't. She was forced to participate in a system, so she participated in it.
This is literally the main plot point of Atlas Shrugged. John Galt did EXACTLY what he was told to do.
Yes, and that is the point. She showed us that it was all a scam. But we refused to learn the lesson for so long that now that failure threatens to destroy the entire nation.
If you are so desperate, why not spend five seconds in Google? Or if you care about privacy, Duckduckgo?
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=atki...
Saturated fats have actually been found to be perfectly healthy. This is at the core of the so-called "French Paradox". Everything we thought we knew about macronutrition was straight up fucking WRONG. Fat==good. Carbs==bad. Carbs make you gain weight. Fat makes you lose it. There is a reason Americans have been getting so fat--it is because we have been lied to, and we swallowed those lies, and swallowed and swallowed until we wound up drowning in our own blubber.
Liberals can't tell the difference between assault, fraud, and voluntary transactions.
This is why they destroy any jurisdiction they are placed in charge of.
He mean National Socialism. In this case, they aren't forcing the people to pay for health care via taxation or money debasement, they are forcing them to buy a product. That is straight up Nazi policy right there, though one of the less well-known aspects of it.
It really isn't. You are several years out of date (and decades behind Atkins). The benefits of high fat, low carb diets are well known and widely accepted. My health problems pretty much all vanished when I went on it, came back after I got off of it, and went away when I got back on it again. Studies back up my experience.
She paid for it. There is nothing wrong with taking money back from a bandit (freely given or otherwise).
I will never understand how liberals can harbor so much illogical thought without drowning in the shower.
There are ideas out there for free market "jails" where incentives are set such that people who repeatedly commit crimes will have powerful incentives to stay there, but that requires massive change on a societal level (including replacing government with social insurance policies). Absent such change, I would say that jail is for people who take freedom away from others, by hurting or killing them, defrauding them, stealing from them, etc. Governments are typically the ones curtailing freedom the most overall, but criminals often curtail the rights of a single individual much more than the government, and as such, they need to be curtailed as well.
If I were president, I would actually immediately shut down most jails, as they are full of people who committed victimless "crimes" like possessing drugs.
"Pretty much everybody likes "freedom.""
Yo, I disagree. Most people, rather than supporting the freedom of others, want other people to be forced to agree with their own views. But that isn't freedom.
Words have meaning. Those who attempt to take away the meaning of words should be exposed to the full force of an outraged society. They attempt to win arguments through redefinition, often to double meaning, ie Orwellian doublethink. This is bad.
Both liberals and conservatives are rubes, both have been taken in by the same people, to disastrous ends.