I think there is a significant turning point that is arriving and it's NOT the singularity that Kurzweil imagined with artificial intelligence. It's computers and robots that are "good enough" to replace most human jobs. There are still going to be jobs for the people who fix the robots, but we are well on our path to diminishing jobs in return for progress in technology. The shovel-ready jobs are going to go away. Checkout lines, fast food, security, transportation -- there are many fields where an automated "drone like" device would be good enough. It frees up labor to do other tasks; like fill out unemployment forms.

For some time, many jobs have really depended on "make work." Regulation is the #1 provider for jobs. How many jobs would we lose if Taxes became merely a percent of income above 1 million and the rest tariffs that only importers paid? Overnight, accountants, clerks and ancillary jobs related to tax would disappear. There'd still be a few jobs in the rarefied world of "really smart" to allow companies to skir their tax burdens.

Most of us are not paid on merit -- and never have been. Most income is related to where you stand in the bottleneck of money -- not your value to society, the sweat of your brow, or your intelligence (though nominally, you can truly fail in some tasks without it). Income is a policy and society decision -- and our current public awareness, political landscape and "free market" driven oligarchy are not even on the same page with what to do.

Our current system of "growth" is unsustainable -- as is our Free Market. A lot of people have not understood it and some people will never allow themselves to come to terms with that because they've been weened on the "miracle of the invisible hand" -- which only existed because of Socialist reforms and wealth transfer to the poor in the first place.

What do we do when 80 to 90% are unemployed and they still live in a "work or die" country? It seems to me that our laws are ready to treat everyone as a bad guy and crush them. There is no middle ground between public assistance and starve to death. So do people opt out or do the fight? That's the future I worry about and I see no clear resolution.

The same inequities and bad planning that are killing the planet are the same ones that cause most of the misery for most people. I'm amazed that in a short time "most" people on Slashdot have moved from a Libertarian mindset to a Progressive -- likely because the goldmine days of Programming have dried up and now they can't feel like the "world is my oyster" wunderkind. They've got limits, responsibilities and problems they cannot surmount on their own. So I don't think it's impossible that people take the next logical step.

The "Singularity" that I see is that point at which the world has to change or devolve into Chaos. The age of the Free Market is coming to a close. The age of un-managed resources is coming to a close. And some people aren't going to like not having their toys. There are two choices; quickly remove all the population that is unnecessary or share stuff and people work if they've got something of value to offer -- like in Star Trek.

I'm already annoyed at having to explain these simple and obvious realities but that's life.

Mod parent up to +11. Then mod them down -2 for swearing.

I think it's necessary to state the obvious that trolling is not stalking + INTERNET. Then sneak a dunce tag on the back of Congress weasels and Senator stooges who repeat this because their backers are large communications companies who want to kill net neutrality one "save the children" at a time.

I think in some regard that a Troll is in the eye of the beholder.

Someone saying "You are all a bunch of Nazis!" may be considered a troll, but if it's on a NeoNazi website talking about the 2000 Year reign -- well, the boot might fit.

To me a troll is someone who is provoking a negative reaction on purpose -- it's a subtle difference between someone just angry and ranting -- which I have done. Then again, it can be annoying sense of humor, and the person getting "tweaked" is over-reacting. So there we get into intent.

There are also corporations who pretend to be unconnected and push back on ideas or plant memes. Is that considered a Troll too?

As soon as we pass a law that can't really be fairly enforced, we invite arbitrary enforcement.

Who DOESN'T think such a law will be abused to give power and cover to the same people who already abuse power to give themselves cover?

Well if you've got a neckbearded old man posing as a young girl is that "intent" or is that mistaken identity? Should we crush the person with harsh police state laws because they wanted to hurt the feelings of a young girl, or do we crush the guy who pretends to be a young girl, or do we crush the young girl for letting someone steal her identity like the banks do and then she goes to court to prove she didn't make those posts and those purchases that someone gave them credit to do -- like investing in a sketchy stock, but you're a bank and you've made both bankruptcy and defending your identity impossible -- so screw 'em all!

All I know is someone will be crushed and the world won't get any better -- but more funding for the Po-Po so it's all good. Would you like air in that jail cell? That will cost you...

I like this quote;
"which expands what constitutes online harassment, could help put the pressure on harassers."/I.
Someone is going Hurray -- who doesn't realize that the only people who can actually afford to go after online harassment are corporations and trust fund babies.

I fear our justice system far more than ali Cakes or the latest blowback; it's either Ebola or Icicle -- I'm too busy ignoring the TV news to know for sure.

"So is he still alive, or is his body buried in concrete?"

So instead of showing the security flaws, they need to abscond with enough money to pay for a few candidates.

Hackers; share the wealth!

Put me down for a trillion-ish, and I won't see anything wrong.

Just like copyright. When a few Disney characters come near being free to market, they'll extend copyright beyond Walt Disney's "sell by date" for his frozen head.

What I learned today;
So instead of embarrassing abusive power hungry security morons, it's better to just "stand your ground" -- in a Florida kind of way?

The "Supply Side" I mention is an EXAMPLE of Reaganomics. If you want to quote Reagan on government, taxation and the economy, it's FUCKING IMPORTANT to note that; he tripled the debt. He lowered taxes on everyone (especially the wealthy) and then doubled them on the self-employed, increased SS taxes and created the homeless problem in America.

Oh, and Reagan grew the government, supported intrusion into your life (Moral Majority giving support), sold out to the banks and the Mid-east Oil cartels. Should I go on? A few people made a good deal on the stock market and for that it was "a Miracle." Never mind that Clinton did a much better job growing the stock market and investment increased when taxes on stocks increased -- they decreased when Bush reduced them and resulted in more foreign investment.

I'm a bit reactionary because I live in a country of morons like you who say; "I'm a fiscal conservative" and act like they are the smartest person in the room -- then they can't make one comment to support your economic ideas. THAT is my point -- did you read it? My reaction to the Reagan quote was to point out that it was nonsense, and it's coming from a high tax, government growing hypocrite who supported Supply Side economics -- the biggest robber baron piece of crap the world has ever invented. And nobody quotes what Obama "supporters" think -- they quote what Reaganites say to each other that Obama supporters think. Real Democrats think Obama is a Republican but he's better than the alternative -- that's NOT a compliment. It's just our system is too corrupt with Oligarchy to do any better.

I think the other side of the problem here is because people read or hear a few stories like this -- they feel persecuted. There''s 24 hour news and 24 hour blogs and writers have to get people to notice them.

it's just filler -- and it will be until the mainstream media stops making news a profit center. There are important issues in this world and our media is studiously avoiding them. So what's safe to talk about that doesn't risk hurting the economic interests of an increasingly influential series of interlocking companies? Rehash the same stale discussions that we've been gnawing on for 30 years.

There are men who listen to talk radio and think they are persecuted, there are women who think they are being ignored -- and the rest of us who are sane and wise know that everyone is being ignored and persecuted because we live in a hostile free market world that isn't handing out any free passes unless your dad's name is on the building.

I'm sorry to SOUND misogynistic, but whenever I hear a rant like; "It's there fault, and they should be more X, but on the other hand not too anti-X," I interpret what they are saying as "Blah, blah blah, DO ME, blah blah blah HARD, blah blah-blah NOW."

I could pepper this comment with a lot of psychology, thoughtful hemming and hawing, or some sort of shared responsibility. I am after all a feminist and I think Gloria Stein is awesome. But the difference here is that men recognize when they just need to get -- SomEthing eXactly appropriate -- and are OK with admitting it.

At NPR, they are all sponsored by companies they formerly used to challenge with cutting edge investigations. Now their legacy nod to anything Liberal is to whine about issues that Liberals used to champion. It's got to be difficult coming up with material that pretends to challenge the status quo -- but in acceptable ways inside of the "free speech zone" they've been quarantined in by sponsors and overly sensitive donors. I'm not Professional, but I'm willing to bet that everyone at NPR is in dire need of SomEthing eXactly.

LOL.

It only needs to be explained if he voted for Herman Cain or that governor from Texas who wanted a double-walled electrified fence with shoot to kill orders on the border with Mexico.

It's a pointless task to shut the Republicans up. If the wind is blowing East they will complain that it should be blowing West. If it changes to West, they complain that it should have changed sooner. If It was East and suddenly blew West without their complaints being heard, they will complain that it was a UNILATERAL change in wind direction and OMG "the One" is acting like an emperor from Kenya -- this was foretold in Revelations.

Really -- THAT's how you interpret that sentence?

Me, I figure the process is this;
1) Top Exec gets "vision"
2) Worker drones in various departments feverishly compete for solution.
3) Solution is not compatible with other departments.
4) Hapless new guy gets Vision Solution and the rest implement a generic version that is compatible.
5) Least common denominator patch solution gets implemented.
6) Marketing figures out a way to describe the moderate and stable change as "Visionary".
7) Someone digs up a customer email in their data warehouse of suggesting for a match.
8) Marketing department posts email request from user and let's people know; "Microsoft is Listening"
9) 3 billion suggestions and 4 billion "You suck" comments get compressed and moved back to the data warehouse waiting for the next visionary release, right next to the Arc of the Covenant.

We joke, but it's clearly a target for Denial of Service attacks.

Or anyone who can train a large group of Artic Terns to fly in a circle. Should be pretty easy if you just clip the left wing.