Re: Inverting the pyramid
And as for having people with the money to pay for your goods, the robot masters can simply cater to each other.
11103 posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
And as for having people with the money to pay for your goods, the robot masters can simply cater to each other.
"Unless we start creating robots to create and maintain those other robots...
Then its robots all the way down !"
No, you route them into a loop. If Robot A can service Robot B and Robot B can service Robot A (or at some point in the chain, the robot or robots can circle back to service the first robot in the loop), then you solve the "Who Services the Service Robots?" with "One of the other Robots."
Especially when the ACTUAL risk of an existential threat is constantly rising. By definition, no one can survive such a threat, so you can never defuse that kind of fear without encouraging suicide.
But with a greater chance of a Panopticon, the odds of a dead drop being watched or a First Contact being moled are greater.
Which allows the perfect blackmail. Slip a block of pure random data into a user's computer and then tell Scotland Yard the victim is a pedo. No way to prove the block isn't his, absolutely impossible to decrypt (because it was never encrypted to begin with), you tell the news about it, and it's Game Over.
"There is absolutely nothing that any .gov can do to change this."
Yes, there is. Simply ban the use of any and all encryption that cannot be cracked by the state. Declare it an act of TERRORISM or whatever that means if you're caught, you and anything associated with you are basically ruined forever.
Then you just have to deal with stego, which has its own limitations, especially for improvised messages. mandating media mangling would probably be a good start there.
"Not only could they have an emergency that I'm unaware of, but it also makes for less stress and it's better to have people like that in front where you can see them then behind you which requires you to take your eyes off the traffic to check."
In the US, there's a more practical reason, too. We call it "letting the rabbit run." Letting a speeder pass means it's the car the cops spot first (and will subsequently stop), meaning you can play looser. I've also heard rumors of trucking convoys employing a "rabbit" car at the head of the convoy that lets the whole convoy drive faster, figuring if the cops act, it'll be on the rabbit, and the time they save is worth more than the speeding ticket.
"A short browsing of YouTube reveals a vast range of human drivers in various countries all around the world doing some very dimwitted things behind the wheel of a car."
I ALSO hear stories of drivers who act out of reflex, and because of it avoid an accident. They don't even know HOW or WHY they did it, indicating they acted SUBconsciously, intuitively. It's hard to teach intuition because we don't even KNOW how our intuition works: it all works reflexively, without our conscious thought.
I always preferred bots that didn't need SRM's...because they could still operate upside-down.
Plus the minimum margin of safety is greater than the maximum margin before someone cuts you. You need at least two car lengths, yet you'll be cut at only one car length.
"Besides, we ALL know that cheap labor in China (and other places) is taking away the low-skill domestic manufacturing jobs anyway. I'd just as soon see robots do that level of work, with domestic employees building (and/or maintaining) the robots (at a higher wage)."
One, what's to stop them using cheapER robots in China, and using local help (and less of it) at lower wages?
"A shift will take place that focuses building efficient, functional and useful stuff that complements human labor."
COMPLEMENT...or REPLACE? Isn't that why industrial robots were made? What about the shift to container shipping? The next industrial transformation (and I'm going to take a guess it'll be road freight--it meshes well with containerization) is as likely as not to take more (squishy, error-prone) humans out of the equation.
Another problem is cultural in nature: and I'm talking ANCIENT cultural, as in "earning your keep" all the way back to "hunt/gather or DIE" ancient. I dare say it's just about instinct, meaning it'll be nigh-impossible to teach away. It's one reason crime won't go away, either, because what one sees as crime another sees as "I survive and you don't."
And before you counter that adding robots means jobs handling the robots, industrial robots are designed to be low-maintenance. What would've taken an assembly line of people to do now just needs one or two technicos monitoring the whole line to make sure nothing's going wrong and the occasional contractor to come by when something does go wrong.
It's like how shipping changes drastically with the move to container shipping, as someone noted in a previous related article.
"How they raise wages, however? They will raise *total* income, because rising productivity implies that much - but as far as I can see, approximately all of that income will go to the people owning the robots. So they will - buy more robots, I guess?"
Worst comes to worst, the robot masters can just cater to each other and seal off the walled garden.
"Does anyone pity the poor "buggy whip" makers, when the automobile displaced the horse? Or livery stable operators? Or how about when computers took over BANKING, and you no longer needed rooms full of 'calculators' with adding machines? Yeah, it's a lot like THAT."
As a matter of fact, I do. Because you have to consider the knock on effects of displacing breadwinners with little prospect for starting over. Children, families, whole communities can be left in the lurch. And you know what they say about the desperate.
"I just wish they'd go back to the drawing board and quit fucking with the UI."
Except it's the SAME UI Chrome used to steal most of Mozilla's users. Sounds to me like Google hit upon something we hate but MORE people LIKE.
Thinking about it, but I have an 8GB cap and regularly do some heavy work (media encoding, 3D, etc.). Currently keep an XP VM knocking around for legacy apps.
"That is my main concern with Chrome--I hate the UI"
Your sentiment seems to be in the minority since Chrome is the dominant browser currently instead of Mozilla, which seems to be behind the proverbial 8-ball.
Linux is not an option because I use Steam, and most of my library is Windows-ONLY.
I don't want to have to deal with settings that could be reverted behind my back. Especially for stuff like TOR or Freenet where you're already strolling the dark web. I'll stick with Off By One and Links for the time being, but this is something that should seriously be addressed in the name of security: a browser with no capability to leak things because the potential leaks never exist (meaning there's no way to secretly turn them on, either).
"It also returns a 404, meaning it's no longer maintained. As for Lynx, I need a graphical web browser, just a baseline one, so Lynx won't do it."
Updating my own post, which raises a curiosity. It may not be gone but rather so deprecated that modern browsers return a 404. If you browse to the same site using its own browser, it shows up. That said, one of the download mirrors is Gone.
"True it hasn't been updated since 2006 but it can still be downloaded from the offbyone.com download links (hover your mouse over the middle links in the download links and you'll see, I just downloaded from all three)."
Link #1 returns "As of September 30, 2014, the Verizon Site Builder tool has been decommissioned and all online Personal Web Space pages have been deleted." #2 and #3 work, and I eventually got a working copy off Softpedia.
It also returns a 404, meaning it's no longer maintained. As for Lynx, I need a graphical web browser, just a baseline one, so Lynx won't do it.
Not really. Most of my stuff comes from F-Droid. Plus with explicit apps, I have more control over them since I can prune.
But if weren't for the fact the Web as we know it is being controlled by uncaring corporate interests, perhaps it's time to rethink how the WWW is working and take a few steps back to what it once was: a more-passive protocol that wasn't about cramming everything including the kitchen sink into it and more about simply conveying information.
I mean, when you think about it, why is it that we ended up with an interactive WWW protocol rather than delegating this interactivity to other, more-dedicated protocols like VNC?
"Nobody with a healthy brain would buy such focking washing machine with wireless/ethernet/whatever!"
Unless, of course, the ONLY choices of sustenance left available to you are manure, dung, and crap. What are you going to do if you're starving?
"If you simply fail to inform your inevitable IoT dishwasher of the password for your household Wi-Fi hotspot, then it's significantly less likely to actually connect."
Unless, of course, it's able to use a whispernet.
"Do you really believe crooks are so stupid they fear some light bulbs on? There are several creative and simple techniques they employ to know if someone is really at home or not. CCTV cameras and alarm systems are more effective - if they work correctly and don't become another issue themselves."
Many crooks lack the tools to make effective checks. They're just lightning-raid burglars out for a quick score. You can't rely on the phone because many people screen calls through the answering machine first (so won't answer in any event). Knocking and any other physical test runs the risk of drawing attention of the neighbors.
"In case of emergency, you may *not want* to turn on all the lamps. In some situations, could be better to cut off the main power and activate specific emergency lights, which won't create more issues."
Those are infrequent, and in any event, just about anything that could make the mains dangerous could make the emergency lights dangerous, too (because they're also electric). The main reason you want the lights on is because it may be night or otherwise hard to see, and the main goal in these situations is to just get the heck outta there, which may be difficult in low-light conditions.
A presence switch that works with modern lights? I don't think you'll get it that cheap. The reason being presence switches work like dimmers, and many modern lights don't work well with dimmers (thus the label "non-dimmable"). You either need dimmable bulbs or presence switches designed for use with non-dimmable lights (those tend to be industrial-grade for use with fluorescent office lights--more expensive).
PS. As for being able to get up and flick a switch. there are handicapped people out there who CAN'T.
Unless, of course, you don't OWN the computers you use everyday, meaning you have no control over the programs you can install on them.
"We never saw him again. Nor did we see the kit. We got the Police involved - who told us that this guy had not committed theft because we had not made it a condition of lending that he give the kit back when he'd finished with it..."
Last I checked, the dictionary definition of "lend (vt)" includes the word "returned". Why didn't you counter to the police that the word "lend", because of its definition, implies a return condition?
I think that's why he didn't bother, since it's a case of "seconds count, cops are minutes away". By the time he called the cops, the voyeurs could easily split leaving no trace.
And there are DOCUMENTED cases of actual baseball players sustaining FATAL injuries from line drives. So why aren't baseballs and their bats regulated?
If that's true, why didn't this emerge in the original trial? And where's the reputable news article stating this (like from an actual newspaper)? Also, it wouldn't make sense to film from the house next door. The best procedure would be to start from the front of the house (out on the street--public property), fly OVER the house, then turn around to look at the back.
I actually owned one once. Trouble is that there's actually a technique for throwing it that limits your angles.
Actually, a railgun runs the current through the projectile to magnetize it. What you describe is more a coilgun.
"And aluminum supplies a rewarding "clank", a wooden bat on skull just sounds like you're banging cocoanuts."
Depends. Some really prefer the wooden CRACK of the wood bat, and of course the pro leagues insist on wood for difficulty reasons.
A high-candlepower utility light should be more than sufficient, and they make them in a portable handheld configuration. Wide cone of light so it works shotgun-style: hard to miss.
Not to mention baseball bats (which are nigh-ubiquitous in America) can inflict comparable damage, especially the aluminum ones. Their ubiquity and legality make them a preferred gang weapon when less-lethal force is required.
"The judge will ask the parties if they will settle and I think it is obvious that MS will say yes. MS will not be put in the position of publicly accepting wrong doing."
And if the class refuses to settle because not only do they WANT MS publicly shamed but it can also feed the mill for a criminal case which could turn up the heat on MS. If the government itself gets involved (due to their use of Windows and so on), it may even push into a case where Microsoft could be compelled to turn over source code for national security reasons.
I'm personally tempted to take the gray way out, but as my current system started on 8, I'm concerned it could get dicey, and I know such a gamble will be a one-way trip. And no, I can't use a Linux distro because of all the games I have that are strictly Windows-only (as in not even WINE works on them, and 3D virtualization is iffy, especially on newer games), plus I've had bad experiences with Linux lately: lots of spontaneous reboots and so on.
PS. Has any egghead found a way to create an alternate route to installing security updates such that all the crap has been pruned off so you know you're just getting what you need?
Oh? Like which specifically? And note we're talking the US here.
Why not compel them to open the source?
And what if a certain class of support is a LEGAL REQUIREMENT?
Just curious. What if the allergy sufferer is illiterate? I think that claim was used in the McDonald's coffee suit (which got tossed out for a different reason), claiming the plaintiff couldn't understand the "Caution! Hot!" warnings on the cup because he couldn't READ the warning.
Just wondering if there's a precedent for when a business gives fair warning but the victim was not in a position to read or comprehend the warning.
"Don't take control from me when I know what I am doing."
But then, the big question. Do you KNOW what you're doing, or do you THINK you know what you're doing?
The fact Budweiser and especially Bud Light sells considerably should tell you people like F'n close to water (that's what Sex on the Beach is, after all). Also remember, most of America is hotter than most of Europe, so their preference for alcohol content will be different due to the climate (lagers sell a lot better than ales in hotter climates).
The fact the craft beer industry is thriving in America should also tell you it's not the end of the beer world there, either.
Plus distributors normally have the most important thing a talent needs to make it in the business: connections.
Until something goes wrong like a false positive. I once used a Proxomitron but had to give it up due to too many false positives.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017