Forgot your password?

+ - One in three jobs will be taken by software or robots by 2025, says Gartner ->

Submitted by dcblogs
dcblogs (1096431) writes "Gartner predicts one in three jobs will be converted to software, robots and smart machines by 2025," said Peter Sondergaard, Gartner's research director at its big Orlando conference. "New digital businesses require less labor; machines will make sense of data faster than humans can," he said. Smart machines are an emerging "super class" of technologies that perform a wide variety of work, both the physical and the intellectual kind. Machines, for instance, have been grading multiple choice test for years, but now they are grading essays and unstructured text. This cognitive capability in software will extend to other areas, including financial analysis, medical diagnostics and data analytic jobs of all sorts, says Gartner. "Knowledge work will be automated.""
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:no (Score 2) 437

So require a key for override, that way the 9 year old can go to grandma's house but not into a tree. If you need to pay attention and be prepared to intervene at any second then how is this not strictly worse than the current system? It's less convenient than a cab and more expensive than a bus. Pretty useless. And people multi-task with phones and laptops now, what makes you think they'll pay any attention at all when cars drive themselves 99.99% fine on there own?

Comment: Re:most young developers are at least as bad (Score 1) 232

by CaptainPinko (#47026849) Attached to: Programmers: It's OK To Grow Up
Not "really good" just much better than everything else at the time. Something that works 5% of the time is much better than others that work 1% of the time, but 10 years later most of the new things work 25% of the time. So the 5% was best in class for its time then, but total shit now.

Comment: Re:Much like tax breaks for the wealthy.... (Score 1) 274

by CaptainPinko (#39728517) Attached to: Asian Call Center Workers Trained With US Tax Dollars

I can't tell you how often I hear someone want to "ax" me a question.

I recall my linguistics professor saying the "ax" actually is an older form of the word that has been preserved. So it's not so much improper as much as it is antiquated.

Also, languages go through regular mutatations, this is just another one of them. I don't think "ax" is any different than "pail" vs "bucket" or "pop" vs "soda". It's just that it is associated with a poorer demographic, but that doesn't make it any less valid English.

PS- Yes, I am the kind of person that will use "thee" and "thou" if necessary to disambiguate from "you".

Comment: Re:Very brief summary (Score 1) 244

by CaptainPinko (#39646363) Attached to: MIT Fusion Researchers Answer Your Questions
Due you think that crowdsourcing might help? Anyone know what it takes to get an experiment going? I mean if we can get $2M for Wasteland 2, surely we could get at least $2M for a fusion experiment. Maybe more if we could get tax deducatable receipts... and a cool (or should I say "hot"? ;) ) t-shirt.

Comment: Re:And that is what really stiffles innovation (Score 1) 384

by CaptainPinko (#38907001) Attached to: Leaked Zynga Memo Justifies Copycat Strategy
I think your comment distracts more than anything. The point is that you should only be responsible for your direct actions. Driving drunkenly and hitting a child and nearly hitting a child should, arguably, have the same sentence since what differentiated the two was not intended. Now, whether you want to charge both with manslaughter or neither is a separate matter.

Comment: Re:And that is what really stiffles innovation (Score 1) 384

by CaptainPinko (#38906965) Attached to: Leaked Zynga Memo Justifies Copycat Strategy
that would harm one of the underlying principles of common law many people agree with, the equal protection provision. Perhaps then its time to revisit common law, most of the world does without it. While the idea of it seems good (i.e. more consistency in interpretation) it means that reading a law is near meaningless until you read every ruling on that law. There was a lot of interesting pieces written contrasting the two systems following the Amanda Knox acquittal.

Is a person who blows up banks an econoclast?