Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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:Robots will continue to win: What do we do (Score 1) 296

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:Robots will continue to win: What do we do (Score 2) 296

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 13 times less? (Score 1) 159

What are we supposed to infer from this?

engineers in India's tech hub cost 13 times less than their Silicon Valley counterparts

So, the engineers in Silicon Valley cost less than somewhere else, but the ones in India are thirteen times MORE less expensive than the ones in SV? Or are we supposed to gather that the SV engineers cost something that we should all consider a good baseline, but that the Indian engineers cost roughly 8% of that amount?

Lazy writers, being lazy.

Comment Re:Yeah, real "terrifying" (Score 1) 195

Kitchen knife use case #1: Kill insufficiently Muslim heathens working for the oppressive British Government! (this use case was seen just the other day)

Kitchen knife use case #2: Make a sandwich. (this use case also seen just the other day)

Maybe you don't have the problem. But, for example, a city here in our state has been known to have a problem with "protesters" deciding that they're going to fix the problems with the culture in their local neighborhood by smashing the few remaining businesses in that neighborhood and burning the houses of the few little old ladies who haven't already decided they'd be safer living elsewhere as a homeless street person than in the middle of place like that.

The cops are too scared to even attempt to mitigate all of that violence and destruction unless they have function physical protection while trying to push a mob of looting arsonists away from the stores they're trying to destory. A tool that helps them to do that is a good thing. If somebody has a problem with the fact that a politician with the wrong idea about things might use such a tool to chase away people who aren't being violent and destructive, then they need to vote for different politicians. In the meantime, recognize the fact that there actually ARE violent, destructive herds of "protesters" who actually do get together to destroy and smash and steal things, and that it's absurd to tell a police officer to risk being, say, burned alive or having her head caved in to try to repel looters. A tool is a tool. There are always going to be outlandish or absurd use cases. If there is NO good use case (say... police batons with spikes on them?) then of course the tool is worth ridiculing. Giving cops a tool to protect themselves while preserving others' lives and property is a good thing. Misusing it is a bad thing, but that's true of cop cars and every other tool they've always had.

Comment Re:Take whoever came up with this (Score 0) 152

Well, you're just wrong. I've personally watched inventory shrinkage drop into the measurement noise with the introduction of technology-based tools that catch the people who steal - because other employees understand there are consequences.

Yes, it's a shame that throughout all of human history and in every level of society and income, some people like to steal stuff. Someone who is trying to make a living running a business and who has to make payroll every week and keep customers happy won't usually have a lot of luck changing human nature. Now, I know that you've personally solved these human nature problems in your own area, and no longer feel any need to lock your doors or in any way look after your personal safety, because you've fixed everybody that you might encounter or who might want your stuff.

Yes, people stealing things IS a problem. And taking measures to stop it from happening to you isn't irrational. Yes, more parents should raise kids that have some sort of moral compass and which are educated and motivated enough to go out and create things so that they can trade the fruit of their labors for the stuff they want, instead of stealing it. Your notion that it's wrong-headed to use convenient tools to help deal with the fact that there are lots of people out there who DO find it easier (or even, in some cases, more entertaining) to steal stuff than buy it - never mind, I realize that you're trolling. Silly me.

Comment Re:Take whoever came up with this (Score -1, Troll) 152

Give them a decent paycheck so they actually have something to lose if they get fired?

Yep, you've never actually worked in such an environment, have you? I've seen people making six figures who steal routinely $20 stuff from their employers. I've seen well paid general managers of grocery stores stealing steaks. I've seen IT directors who drive Teslas but who still pocket RAM sticks from the lab.

You'll understand when you start working.

Comment Re:Take whoever came up with this (Score 4, Insightful) 152

Here's an idea for you:

1) Start a retail business.

2) Get robbed by someone who walks in the front door. Or,

3) Have one of your employees attack another one. Or,

4) Have one of your employees get hooked on heroin and start to steal your inventory.

I'm guessing your solution to getting to the bottom of such things is to hire people to stand around watching everything so they can testify based on their recollections of events later, in a trial. Because you sure wouldn't want what happens on your own property with your own inventory with your the people you pay money to be there doing things to be recorded. Until you really, really do because real life is different when you start paying a fortune in insurance as part of running a business. Or find yourself in court. Or are running out of money because of inventory shrinkage, or have to know which of your very good employees is totally innocent of what one of your rotten employees has been setting them up to look guilty for.

But yeah, I can see why you'd advocate violence against a vendor offering a service you can choose to ignore if it's not useful to you.

Comment Re: Just repeal it (Score 1) 534

The people who "got" health insurance from the ACA, if they're not dirt poor, DID NOT GET HEALTH INSURANCE. They got miserably high premiums they can barely afford, and are left with so little cash each month that they can no longer afford to go see the doctor. And no, the insurance they're now paying a fortune for doesn't help with that, because a small family has a deductible pushing $20,000. So they are legally required to spend a couple thousand dollars a month on insurance they can't use, and have no cash left with which to buy the services of a doctor. Meanwhile, people who don't pay for anything "got insurance" and are being subsidized by the middle class people who effectively had their ability to see a doctor taken away.

The ACA is a terrible piece of law, and was meant by the Democrats to be just that from the beginning. And it's now imploding. I'm glad yesterday's vote got pulled. The current disaster remains under the ownership of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi.

Slashdot Top Deals

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]

Working...