Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Yet another clueless story on automation (Score 1) 621

by Waffle Iron (#48643039) Attached to: What Happens To Society When Robots Replace Workers?

You certainly could get to a point where it's just too much of a bother to even keep track of a low-achieving human employee vs. having a robot do it. Those people could essentially become unemployable. Some people could be encouraged to try harder to achieve, but in many cases you can't get blood out of a turnip. Every year the percentage of people who fail to make the grade could increase as robots gain capabilities.

I'm sure your fine with that because they're receiving what they're worth. But if it's not handled correctly, these hoards of "useless" people could end up stepping out of your little free market box, turning into angry mobs and burning everything down.

Comment: Re:Yet another clueless story on automation (Score 1) 621

by Waffle Iron (#48642521) Attached to: What Happens To Society When Robots Replace Workers?

The whole point of this topic is that as the supply of labor (provided by workers and/or robots) goes up, the value goes down. Eventually, many people's market value may end up to be essentially zero vs. robots, regardless of what kind of country they live in. You would then probably advocate that we encourage them to work for free; problem solved!

The approaches of the past may not apply it all in the potentially a drastically different future dominated by self-directed automation.

Comment: Re:How soon? (Score 4, Insightful) 153

by Waffle Iron (#48642321) Attached to: The Beatles, Bob Dylan and the 50-Year Copyright Itch

People like you can't seem to wrap your heads around the difference between the physical product of some unit of manual labor, and the creation of an idea.

I know that they're completely different. Copyright fanbois are the ones who don't realize that copyrights are a ham-fisted attempt to make an infinitely replicable idea seem more like a physical object via creating artificial scarcity through government fiat.

And the differences don't apply to my point: You do some work. You get paid for it. Then you should move on and do more work. Your grandchildren should not be able to charge rents a century down the road based on artificially created scarcity without having to do work themselves. That makes no economic sense.

Compare the value of all the tea in crates on docks in Boston harbor in 1776 against the intangible ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, and tell me which was more valuable.

Indeed those documents were very valuable. Somehow they even got created without the benefit of copyright protection or ownership rights by their authors. How could that be? Maybe it's because copyright is highly overrated in the first place.

Comment: Re:How soon? (Score 2) 153

by Waffle Iron (#48641931) Attached to: The Beatles, Bob Dylan and the 50-Year Copyright Itch

Actually, if made it past childhood, life expectancy back then wasn't dramatically less than it is now. It certainly wasn't 5X less, like the copyright terms were.

I can also never figure out why anybody gives a damn about the lifetime of the author. The crew that mudjacked my driveway 20 years ago are probably still alive. None of them are showing up here demanding tips when people park on my driveway.

Comment: Re:How soon? (Score 5, Insightful) 153

by Waffle Iron (#48641539) Attached to: The Beatles, Bob Dylan and the 50-Year Copyright Itch

Yes, the public should be allowed to profit from the work of others.

That's exactly true, and in fact that's the reason that the US Constitution plainly states that copyrights are to be granted only for limited times. The founders of this country clearly wanted the public to profit from the works of others, after as little as 14 years.

Comment: Re:Wasn't there a book about this? (Score 1) 138

by Waffle Iron (#48605397) Attached to: How Birds Lost Their Teeth

The conditions species live in aren't constant. Advantages of A and/or B fluctuate over time. If an animal has A, and the environment suddenly favors B, those closer to B win. For a while some animals will have both.

However, every feature comes at an energy cost, so animals quickly let what they don't need atrophy. If in the current environment B beats out A+B minus extra energy to generate both, then they will settle at B only.

At any rate, every organism is a mixture of thousands of features, from A0 to Z99999, many of which get added and deleted all the time, so your whole argument is bogus to begin with.

Sentient plasmoids are a gas.

Working...