Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Money for his defense (Score 2) 294

by Mystakaphoros (#45049091) Attached to: DOJ Hasn't Actually Found Silk Road Founder's Bitcoin Yet

He might need some of that hoard to pay for his defense. I don't know that going cheap on this will be in his interest.

According to Wired he's using a public defender.

Remember, Ulbricht was living in a shared apartment and working out of a library. If his defense is that he's not the guy running Silk Road, it would be suspicious for a man in his situation to suddenly have an expensive defense team.

Maybe he could start a Kickstarter to fund... well, not his defense, because that's not a creative work, so to speak, but a DOCUMENTARY about his defense, including people who could just check by to see if he was dead yet.

Comment: Re:Sure, to lower paying jobs (Score 1) 674

by Mystakaphoros (#45049069) Attached to: The Luddites Are Almost Always Wrong: Why Tech Doesn't Kill Jobs
What then becomes the problem (such as at my local ShopRite) is that when there are long lines and only a certain number of self-checks, there aren't any cashiers waiting for you. But you wait, because you need food. And the company has already stomped out competition in the local area, so you're still waiting through a line of 10 people who don't know how to scan their own groceries, because they've already fired half the cashiers who could have taken you. And if you bopped over to Pathmark, it'd be the same situation. Of course, then there are those markets far enough away from bus routes who know they can just cater to the non-peasants, and they charge higher prices for staples but lower prices for healthy items.

Comment: Re:Sure, to lower paying jobs (Score 1) 674

by Mystakaphoros (#45036965) Attached to: The Luddites Are Almost Always Wrong: Why Tech Doesn't Kill Jobs
Though continuing to increase our prison population is one "safety net" we seem to be dealing with okay. Criminalize more and more things, increase enforcement constantly, you have an almost never-ending service industry of containing human beings. Unless you decide there's no reason to keep them around anymore, that is.

Comment: Re:Sure, to lower paying jobs (Score 3, Insightful) 674

by Mystakaphoros (#45035235) Attached to: The Luddites Are Almost Always Wrong: Why Tech Doesn't Kill Jobs

What is of more concern is that the proliferation of technical jobs is gradually excluding people of less than average intelligence - a nontrivial fraction of the population.

Exactly. Because nothing ever goes wrong with millions of stupid, angry people with lots of time on their hands.

Comment: Re:it starts one way but ends another (Score 1) 674

by Mystakaphoros (#45035025) Attached to: The Luddites Are Almost Always Wrong: Why Tech Doesn't Kill Jobs

That's one way of defining the average (mean) standard of living, yes. But that does not necessarily mean that the median standard of living also increases in the same scenario, without stronger assumptions on the distribution.

Grade-school level statistics actually showing themselves to be useful. My fifth-grade self's jaw just hit the floor.

Comment: Re:This article assumes... (Score 1) 674

by Mystakaphoros (#45035013) Attached to: The Luddites Are Almost Always Wrong: Why Tech Doesn't Kill Jobs

I'm more inclined to believe in the second possibility. Social pressure would not permit the former IMO. But regardless, my post was just to criticize this idea that because Luddites were wrong once, during the industrial revolution, that their idea of jobs being lost to automation would be forever false. It is bound to happen sometime this century. We will eventually need to find an alternative to our current economic and monetary system based on a jobless (yet productive) society.

I think we share the same hope, though Bangladesh is a good case study of #1 being enacted as we speak.

Comment: Re:Telemarketer (Score 1) 674

by Mystakaphoros (#45034981) Attached to: The Luddites Are Almost Always Wrong: Why Tech Doesn't Kill Jobs

Also, the reason we 'need' so many telemarketers is because we can't use autodialers for telemarketing. Government regulations stop robots from taking that field.

...which is obviously an unfair intrusion by government into a problem (i.e. spending all that money on employees) that could be solved by the market.

Counting in binary is just like counting in decimal -- if you are all thumbs. -- Glaser and Way

Working...