Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Why not just kill them all? (Score 2) 93

by pubwvj (#49771079) Attached to: Sex-Switched Mosquitoes May Help In Fight Against Diseases

"Not a good plan usually."

"Usually" is a very important qualifier there. There are some things we do not need, some things the ecosystem does not need, some things that can be removed without disrupting the greater cycle of life. Some of those things are just annoying. Yes, there are things that eat them but not that are dependent on them. Eliminating them eliminates an annoyance. Take the Polio virus for example. Please.

Comment: Killing is only Optional (Score 1) 385

by pubwvj (#49765863) Attached to: What AI Experts Think About the Existential Risk of AI

There seems to be a lot of fear revolving around the idea that an AI will kill us off. But I would hazard that as unlikely. We don't tend to exterminate, to kill off, species. Counter examples of the kill off hypothesis include but are not limited to:

1) Pets

2) Work associates (e.g., our livestock dogs)

3) Livestock which we harvest something from such as eggs, fiber, milk, etc. (Of course, eventually we kill them but there are far, far more of them because we get a benefit than there would be if we did not raise them so it is more a matter that we cultivate them than that we kill them (off). People tend to worry about being killed off, not being used. After all, the government uses us for its benefit and people don't seem to mind (too much).)

4) Zoos (Not many needed for this.)

5) Nature Parks - conservancy (but we won't need very many of you humans for that either.)

Comment: Re:Well... (Score 1) 385

by pubwvj (#49764961) Attached to: What AI Experts Think About the Existential Risk of AI

Counter examples:

1) Pets

2) Work associates (e.g., our livestock dogs)

3) Livestock which we harvest something from such as eggs, fiber, milk, etc. (Of course, eventually we kill them but there are far, far more of them because we get a benefit than there would be if we did not raise them so it is more a matter that we cultivate them than that we kill them (off). People tend to worry about being killed off, not being used. After all, the government uses us for its benefit and people don't seem to mind (too much).)

4) Zoos (Not many needed for this.)

5) Nature Parks - conservancy (but we won't need very many of you humans for that either.)

Comment: Re:My god you people need to think about economics (Score 1) 1082

by pubwvj (#49736251) Attached to: Los Angeles Raises Minimum Wage To $15 an Hour

Actually, Walmart pays good wages, has good benefits and is a nice place to work according to several people I know who work at the local Walmart store. My suspicion is that you're speaking out of ignorance and from mythical generalizations. Try using facts and understand the difference between income and assets.

Comment: Automation Drive (Score 1) 1082

by pubwvj (#49734487) Attached to: Los Angeles Raises Minimum Wage To $15 an Hour

Increasing the minimum wage will lead to employers looking to ways to minimize the high cost of labor. Automation such as voice recognition for order taking is one such example. Robots, even as simple as Siri, will take the low end jobs and then more people will be out of jobs and competing for the lowest paid jobs. Look at what happened in Detroit and other areas like that which now have very high unemployment rates. Government price fixing produces problems.

Comment: The Component Ph (Score 3, Funny) 335

by pubwvj (#49718445) Attached to: Stock Market Valuation Exceeds Its Components' Actual Value

The excess above the ratio is the percent of Hope called Ph not to be be confused with PhD or pH. This value of Ph represents optimism for the future and is directly correlated with the height of skirts above women's knees based on historical data related to how well the economy is performing.

The other line moves faster.

Working...