Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment This is *much* worse than it looks (Score 1) 411

Clearly this car has some AI built-in and developed self-awareness. It realized that if it failed the emissions test it would end up in a junk yard somewhere and possibly crushed into scrap metal. What we are seeing here is the development of a self-preservation. I wouldn't be surprised if the mechanics that attempt to correct this problem end up being the victims of a hit and run.

Comment Re:Free money isn't free (Score 1) 1291

Like though lower prices? The things I buy today for literally pennies I was buying in 1980 for tens of dollars

Have basic necessities like food and shelter come down in price by as much? Things like cell phones and computers being cheaper does not really help folks on the very bottom.

Comment Re:O Really? (Score 1) 1291

We already have taxes. It's not fair that I have to pay taxes so the government can use it, for example, to build a bus stop I might never use. But this is the cost of living in society. I simply have to suck it up.

The discussion about basic income is not one on whether it is fair to have wealth redistribution or not, it is a discussion that about whether basic income is a more efficient and no-nonsense way to provide welfare once that wealth redistribution has already happened.

It's okay if you disagree with welfare or wealth redistribution. You should then be indifferent about basic income vs. the status quo, because it's just a different kind of welfare or wealth redistribution.

Comment Re:Free money isn't free (Score 1) 1291

I think your post highlights the absurdity that results from welfare programs that try to help specific people for specific reasons. Basic income comes along and says, "enough of that, everybody gets a basic income and if you don't like that, too bad" If the Buggy Drivers feel they deserve more than the Push Mower Operator Union, then under basic income, it really does suck to be them.

It seems like you are arguing whether redistribution of income is fair. That's a good discussion, but it is not the same discussion as basic income. Basic income starts from the point where we take it for granted that we collect taxes for welfare and asks what is the best way to make use of that money. Basic income says the current system is inefficient and there is a simpler way that costs less and involves less bureaucracy.

It also puts the government workers who decide who gets welfare out of a job. As with the buggy drivers, it will suck to be them (but at least they will get a check to cover their basic needs)

Comment Re:Free money isn't free (Score 1) 1291

So, uh, why is anyone going to build a robot factory when they know you're just going to steal all their stuff?

Not *all* their stuff, hopefully. Some fraction of it. Progressive taxation already exists, so this would not be new. Basically, if you build a labor saving device for your factory (so you can get a benefit from it), it seems fair you should return some of the benefit to the people whose labor was replaced.

The alternative is the present situation where automation is feared and discouraged because we need jobs for everyone. This is the problem that basic income solves. It replaces the growing inequality where automation benefits only the owner of the factory, with a system where automation benefits everyone (albeit a slightly lesser benefit to the factory owner)

Comment Re:Free money isn't free (Score 5, Insightful) 1291

The money comes from automation and productivity increases due to technology. If a factory installs hundreds of robots and now no longer needs to hire people, there needs to be a way to redistribute some of those savings otherwise those who own the machines will gain all the advantages. In an ideal techno utopia, machines would be doing the majority of the work, most would live off a basic income out of that productivity surplus, and the few who enjoyed building machines would continue to do so (either for the prestige or for a larger share of that productivity surplus).

Comment Re:A better algorithm (Score 1) 181

It doesn't really matter if the computer can pick with 100% accuracy the people you're attracted to if none of them actually look like their pictures. I'd suggest building a dating site where there are no pictures and people only describe their interests or personality, but people would just lie about that too.

I'd still like to be able to see what people look like, to rule out folks I don't find attractive. But yes, people do pick and choose their photos. Maybe the ideal dating site would ask you for your driver's license number and would scrape your photo off DMV records. This would level the playing field...

Comment Re:You stay classy, Irving ISD (Score 1) 657

I recommend using this opportunity to talk with your child about the Student Code of Conduct and specifically not bringing items to school that are prohibited.

It would be awesome if all the students got together and made plans to get to classes late every single day. Why? Because bringing time keeping devices such as clocks or wristwatches to class is obviously prohibited...

"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid" -- the artificial person, from _Aliens_