This is what my biggest problem is. The only options $300 installation and free 5 Mbps service, or $70 a month 1 Gbps service. The first option is too slow, even if there is no monthly bill, and the second option is more than I want to spend for internet. I would love a $40 option even if it was only 50-100 Mbps. 100 Mbps would be enough to have 4 Netflix Ultra HD 4K streams going at the same time, or just have everybody on HD 1080p streams and still have plenty of bandwidth left over. Giving me 1 Gbps internet does not give me any noticeable internet service than giving me 100 Mbps except when I see the bill at the end of the month.
Am I missing something here? That's how much I currently pay for fiber internet here in Western New York, $72.99/mo for 25/5mb. Why the hell doesn't Google Fiber come out here, I'd love to kick Verizon FIOS to the curb for a lateral price move. I don't have any other bundled services, internet only.
Insurance agents, bus drivers, taxi drivers, chauffeurs and hired drivers are also going to see far fewer jobs.
All of these different levels of people will still be here. They will still have bills and need to eat and have shelter, but WHAT are they supposed to do when their jobs go away?
Just piggy backing on what you said here because you're actually understating the effect on insurance from car automation. It's certainly not *just* insurance agents. Personal auto insurance is a ~$125B industry today. Not even including commercial auto! That doesn't just affect the local agent a consumer works with, it's the entire industry. From executives, accountants, actuaries, underwriters, analysts, IT, software vendors, everyone. By some estimates, this industry will shrink in excess of 50% by 2040.
Society has failed structurally to provide many with the opportunities and tools to keep a viable career path open for their working lifetime.
Why is it society's responsibility to teach you job skills? Society (by which you obviously mean the government) already gives everyone 13 years of education (K-12), and if you walk away from that with no job skill that can't be better done with a servo motor, that is your own fault. I don't think there will be a big revolutionary change if we change the schools to teach for, say, 13 and a half years. People that are willing to learn will continue to do well, and the rest won't.
No, society doesn't have to mean government but it does include it. It's the entire collective, both people and its government. Either way, I used to once agree with you 100% about 5-10 years ago. Since then I've realized I was being naive. Not everyone is smart, ambitious, and young as myself or the group of people I associate myself with. We're talking about 9,000 men and women who may have done nothing but work their factory line, every day, every week, ever year, for what? The past 5, 10, 20, maybe even 40 years? The reality is our brains lose their edge very quickly. It's hard to keep it in good shape when you have a mind numbing job like that. Though no doubt, I'm confident some percentage of those 9,000 did retool/reinvent themselves after losing their jobs. I'm still sure many of them didn't. I'm sorry but the reality is they're going to be left behind. I'm sure the odds of getting left behind increase significantly if they're 50 or older. We need a culture change, we need a society change, we need an education change, we need to at least improve something somewhere. I really don't have a good solution. However, I do know expecting them to do it themselves is exactly why where we are today.
Sure, if we could change the world such that everyone retains their youthful, ambitious, flexible, mind during their entire employment career, regardless of the career path they chose, then yes, that would be the ultimate solution. But that's just not reality.
Good thing there's a better approach then. We can merely wait a few decades and get better data than all that awesome data you mention. The future can't be faked. Funny how you're so confident and then when questioned, it's "Science is not about being sure." Well, my view is that when you use science to justify a massive restructuring of all human society, you better be backed by a lot more than that.
Really? You never act on any evidence unless it's 100% certain, if and only if it's 100% certain? For health, profession, traveling, disease, safety, investments, anything? You never make estimates or take precautionary measures on anything? It's almost like you're insisting you only see things in black and white. I somehow very, very much doubt that.
Casting aside the science for a moment. I imagine nearly everyone, including you, is willing to take measured precautions to protect themselves even if the is nothing more than mere shreds of evidence to cause harm. Science enter stage right, there's plenty of evidence supporting climate change. Climate change has been happening since this damned planet formed. Only debatable questions are who, what, when, and how much. The current "sensationalized" theory on the table is predicting a a couple degrees increase in temperate in the next 100 years. The temperature is not even that big of a damned deal, 2 degrees doesn't hurt anybody much. It's all the other far more adverse effects on the global planet. Acidity of the ocean, rising sea water, changing weather patterns. Why do those things matter? Because we've invested trillions, trillions, and trillions of dollars building things like agriculture, residential, infrastructure, canals, water ways in the world with certain assumptions that are unwinding before our eyes. I'm not sure if you really intend to portray yourself is not caring about protecting our society until it's far too late to reverse it.
I have two objections to GM crops: biodiversity and lock-in (though they don't both apply to the same crops).
This, this! Not the other alarmist crap, should be the biggest worry with GMO products.
And Facebook, an app that just eats cycles and battery life on both iOS and Android. That such a major player as Facebook writes such a shitty awful resource hogging app frankly shocks me... until I remember iTunes on Windows.
Oh I very much doubt it's an accident at all. Facebook makes their living off gathering information from its users, aggregating, and selling/advertising. I can guarantee that's at least partially if not entirely why their app is "resource hogging".
Wasn't it already figured out that trying to blow nukes off on an asteroid surface would achieve approximately JACK SHIT?
They're not sufficiently powerful to break up mass, and due to being nuked in space, the kinetic transfer is significantly less, therefore "deflection" wouldn't happen either.
Well you figured that out pretty quickly. Obviously you plotted out your formula out proving its impossibility on the back of a paper napkin, right? Can you show your math before you start discrediting your fellow scientists on this idea? You can figure this out on a napkin if you want to using the formula below as a starting point and then estimating the mass, velocity, and kinetic energy of an incoming asteroid. You could calculate how much kinetic energy is needed to deflect an asteroid.
It has been estimated that a velocity change of just 3.5/t × 10^-2 ms^-1 (where t is the number of years until potential impact) is needed to successfully deflect a body on a direct collision trajectory. In addition, under certain circumstances, much smaller velocity changes are needed. wikipedia
Where is the money to provide this "Universal Basic Income" going to come from? How will employers that still have a workforce respond in terms of existing wages? How much inflation will this cause? What will happen to home prices/rents/leases/etc costs? Don't seeing it working realistically until human nature changes dramatically...
I completely understand your cynicism because I agree but I don't see an amount specified in the article. If it's something meager like $7K-$15K then I'm not sure it would truly change much of anything. I mean in the US, I think we more or less already have this under different names and parameters? I would be of the opinion that welfare, medicaid, medicare, social security, and the standard tax deduction all touch the spirit of a "universal basic income" except through complex rules, inclusions, and exclusions. I think current laws' end result is trying surgically pinpoint the people that need it "more" but than others. More or less they favor the people that are old, impoverished, or crippled but even those doing well still get some minimal benefits annually. Without knowing all of the rules it would be hard for me to be supportive or not but if they did away with all of the other existing systems of support I would certainly be in favor of overhauling and simplifying the entire system top to bottom. Now if the amount was something like $30K or more, my opinion would shift drastically.
Then why are you not fighting pollution, instead of CO2 which plants need to live?
The whole problem I have with you WarmMongers is that you in fact have essentially ended the fight against real pollution to tilt against the CO2 windmill, all for the sake of making a few people (not you BTW) rich.
So why can't you do both? I seriously doubt there were many so-called environmentalists that didn't say "boo". Anyone I know thought it was a complete disaster, environmentalist or not. Unfortunately there are tens of thousands of disasters like this, both big and small, short and long. The great lakes, oceans, farm run off, on and on and on... nearly all environmentalists care about all of them so I have no idea what you're getting "sickened" at. Either way, I hope you would at least admit that if the current estimates of warming, 2-3 degrees in the next 50-100 years, if "true", would inflict far more damage globally than one river locally? Even if it's not during our lifetimes.
Of course plants need CO2 to live, exactly who is advocating taking it all away? The argument is about moderation, not complete elimination? Not sure if you're just being deliberately facetious there or what.
We need new regulations for drones, because they've changed the game in terms of privacy.
We need laws to protect people from spying, both by private parties and government entities, via drones.
We need laws that say you can't just fly a drone over someone else's property and follow them around, or look in their windows, or whatever. We need regulations to define reasonable expectation of privacy directly to drones.
IMO, we need to have some ability for people to defend themselves from these things as well, whether it's jamming them, shooting them down on your property, whatever.
Agreeing vehemently. I mean I've always agreed with this, but it just kicked up a notch last month when the obnoxious neighbor in my neighborhood decided to get a drone with a mounted camera. You know the neighbor that never says/waves hello, holds ginormous parties that block traffic on our street, cranks the music, "uses" his punching bag while keeping his garage door open, likes to rev his boat's engine while mounted on-trailer for hours, and oh... and a Cadillac Escalade for each and every family member. Yes, those kinds of neighbors. Apparently he finds it very entertaining to fly his drone around the neighborhood, land on people's driveways, go in their backyards, flying around above everyone's houses - mind you which 50% of our neighborhood has skylights which naturally isn't easy to install curtains on. It's people like that, who lack common sense, that *need* to be regulated and unfortunately ruin it for everyone else.
As a side note, I can't wait for those neighbors to move out
If bankers can count, how come they have eight windows and only four tellers?