Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Machines replacing bank tellers? (Score 1) 271

The mob does a lot of idiotic things and eventually these things turn around and bite it in the ass while restructuring everything around. Restructuring is going to happen now, that the outsourcing and automation will remove the power from the mob and will ensure that the people who actually produce stuff have their proper say in this world.

Comment Re:Dilemma Solution (Score 1) 340

Correct, it may be running at a reduced efficiency but who says that as a business you have some sort of a right not to have competition? Nothing says that. Be innovative, come up with businesses that are required and are not there yet, not with businesses that are well established and whose operating costs are so low you cannot compete on the price (if your entire point is to compete on the price).

Compete on something else. It is probably even possible to compete on the fact that you hire humans, not robots, who knows. The point is that with the government rules, regulations and taxes not there, people will invent businesses and automation is not an immediate thing, new businesses do not have clear cut processes, they are fluid and changing until they find their way, automating that is not possible until we have a full fledged human like AI available in a human like body. But that is not going to be cheap, with no regulations people would be able to compete at the very least on the initial price of the capital investment vs the operation costs of a wage labourer.

Comment Re:Dilemma Solution (Score 1) 340

Automation is the key to freedom, including freedom from people who believe they are denied something because they represent no value to somebody else.

Do you or do you not provide value? If you provide value to others then what is your worry? You are needed.

If you do not provide value to others and your only value is in not robbing / not killing them as long as they slave for you then you do not represent any value, you represent an unnecessary added cost and you are subject to an efficiency restructuring.

Comment Re:Makes sense (Score 1) 340

if you really believe that manifesto you're exactly the kind of person everyone else should be looking to lynch

- I already addressed this in the comment you are replying to. That's the point of full self protection and the interim steps to achieve full independence.

because that attitude leads to a few people hoarding and the masses starving.

- actually this attitude is what leads to progress by increasing productivity of those who are looking to be free. This attitude is the only attitude that actually allows the so called 'society' to progress further in the first place. Everybody who ever searched for a profit by building/providing/selling some products/service to the rest of the mob is the person who pushed the mob further as a consequence of his search for freedom. We have billions of people today in the world, who are only alive because of the search of profit by the few who want to be free.

Not everyone starts out with equal means or opportunity, you know.

- yes, I know, that is 100% irrelevant, completely irrelevant because the point is not to equalize everybody's beginnings, the point is to achieve personal freedom.

Again, the fact that people are different and come from different backgrounds is a demagogue's tool to collective theft and nothing else.

Comment Re:Dilemma Solution (Score 1) 340

Society as you know would not exist

- where is the issue? Society as I know it is not the society I believe should exist.

And it ain't stealing pal, taxes are a fact of life,

- so are diseases (a fact of life). Taxes and diseases are detrimental to the individual, to 'quit moaning and pay them' is about as good as to 'quit moaning and suffer keep being sick'.

Comment Re:Makes sense (Score 1) 340

Productivity is literally the ability to produce. The people who produce are the people that build the productive capacity (own productive systems, factories, land, mines, farms, whatever).

Automation increases the productivity of the people who own the productive assets, not of people who are not the owners. The owner is the one whose productivity grows, not somebody who has nothing to do with the productive asset in the first place.

The entire point of running a business is to be productive enough to stop being dependent for other productive people for survival. The most desirable case is to achieve full self reliance.

Full self reliance = full independence from every single person out there.

Full independence from the people, full independence from the systems that are not under your own private control.

Full Self Reliance = Full Independence = FREEDOM. Freedom from people and from systems, freedom from the desires of the collective, freedom from anybody who has an opinion.

That's the point, so when somebody aiming at achieving full independence, full self reliance and full freedom be forced to give up that freedom in the name of 'morality' the only correct response is to work harder towards Full Freedom, which includes Complete Self Protection.

Full reliance = full independence = full freedom = complete self protection.

Complete self protection from the opinions, from the desires, from the collective will of the masses. That is the goal. In the interim using charity and government manipulation is an acceptable solution to the problem of the collective force that can be used to take away the tools, assets and the productive output of the productive individual.


In reality everybody should be aiming towards the same thing, being fully self reliant, fully independent, fully free and completely self protected. That's a good goal, try and do it for yourself.

Comment Re:Robots will continue to win: What do we do (Score 1) 340

Yes, and I admitted it's flawed. But the flaws you point to don't nullify the conclusion they just require complications. Has your physics teacher ever mentioned the frictionless surface, or the massless point. These don't exist either. Nor does a maxwell's demon. but all provide insight. Don't get bogged in the weeds.

Comment Re:Dilemma Solution (Score 1) 340

I disagree. I do not believe in stealing from the few to subsidise the many and there is no reason to trade with people who are not producing anything in return for the trade (and no, paper money is not a thing that is relevant, the only relevant thing is productive output of an individual).

I think the only correct response to any form of job loss is removal of all government involvement in the business, labour and money. The chips must fall where they may, people without the past jobs can work for people who start new businesses but the only possible way to start new businesses in the automation environment is to remove government oppression from the equation entirely.

Comment Re:Robots will continue to win: What do we do (Score 2) 340

I'm going to get yelled at for posting this but there's this science fiction short story called "manna" by marshall brain. For the record I'm not marshall brain. In fact the story is rather poorly written. But it does contain a brilliant insight on this problem so I recommend it in the same way would recommend the poorly written but insightful science fiction of the 40s, 50s, 60s. A must read.

SO anyhow getting back on track here. These robots would not be used if caused the company to make less money or to produce fewer products. therefore someone is profiting from this. At the same time we just freed up some labor. Now if you have ever studied the debate between Hayak and Keynes economics you know that this presents a problem. If new higher paying jobs don't srping up to use that labor then one can enter a stalled economic situation where one hasn't increased the velocity or the total amount of money in circulation but has created dis-employment. the classic example is the 2 person village where the candle maker buys 2 loves of bread everyday from the baker, and baker buys 2 candles from thecandle maker. this cycle repeats every day. One day the baker decided to same some money to send to his sick mother, so he bought one candle. The next day the candlestick maker only had money to buy one loaf of bread. and the cycle now became one of a lower productivity. Everyone would like to be working at a higher level of productivity but there's no way to get there. The baker only has enough money to buy the resources he needs to make one loaf. He can't make 2 if he wanted to. Same for the candle maker. The a Mr Keynes comes to town and loans the baker enough money to make two loves and the candle stick maker enough money to make two candles. They then resume the 2 by 2 economy. In return Mr. Keynes, who was actually the tax man in disguise, gets more taxes in the long run.

Yes you can poke some holes in that reductionist example but the point is there are different nash equilubria in economines and you can through no fault of your own end up in a lousy one.

As we become more productive with robots one can either go to an economy where fewer people are employed and fewer people buy the now cheaper goods while wealth concentrates into the few people wiht enough capital to buy these expensive robots, or you could consider an increasingly socialist econonmy where we the increasing cheapness of goods lets us lead more procutive happy lives or lives with more leisure. It requires preventing excess capital accumualtion to achieve. This doesn't mean everyone has to be equal. But one can realistically consider a miniium basic income economy (e.g. finland is experimenting with this) where industrious people are free to earn more by working. Everyone can follow their hearts once the robots are able to make cheap buildings and grow cheap food and make cheap clothing, without it being a burden on the people who choose to work or create or invest.

Yes you can quibble, but if you extrapolate to infinite cheapness clearly I'm right. So ar what level of finite cheapness am I also mostly right?

Anyhow read marshall brains story to see how this can be made plausible.

Comment how about tunnels? (Score 1) 305

If we are going to smoke some serious weed here, I propose this idea: tunnels.

Dig a bunch of tunnels, airplanes can land onto a shorter strip and go underground. You can have as many tunnels pointing in as many directions as you want and the cool part is that all you have to worry about is ... floods and the under ground zombie people.... but it will look cool

Comment and if people have different information? (Score 1) 82

I find that it is useful to do brainstorming when it is 2-4 people, each one having worked on a different part of the same system as an example, then it is more or less useful. At least it helps to avoid major mishaps, people who know their particular part of the system / problem can filter everybody's input through their knowledge and at the minimum provide reasons for why a proposed idea will/will not work.

Comment Re:Machines replacing bank tellers? (Score 1) 271

everyone to race to the bottom instead of having the ability (and the financial wherewithal) to be individuals

- yeah, I don't want any single person to benefit from any oppression of any other single person out there. Not one should be oppressed to provide anything to any one. To actually *earn* to be an individual is quite different from thinking you are an 'individual' because somebody was oppressed to provide you with this so called 'individuality'.

Whatever you said doesn't matter to me one single bit, I look at what you write here and I know exactly what sort of a monstrous prick I am dealing with.

Slashdot Top Deals

"I never let my schooling get in the way of my education." -- Mark Twain