Re: Pretty well Inevitable for an Alpha Version
I don't know, the best phone I ever had folded in half. It had two screens! That was a while ago, though.
52 posts • joined 26 Jun 2014
Advertising is about messaging, we used to be concerned about truth in advertising. What they are talking about is Orwellian message control. I do wish our ever so wise lawmakers, who are just now seeming to realize how ridiculous this whole exercise has been, would focus on the big picture. Indeed, I believe the ultimate outcome it to certify this content adjustment based on user preference business model, which is the real bugaboo, and will tempt transgression by whoever chooses to try to exploit it next, or FB will just find a new way, either/or.
The real benefit of our information ageis the open access and virtually unlimited information. We could be liberating education and creating real electronic democracies that are nimble, responsive and comprised of well informed constituents, or we can wait for Farmville 2.
For those who think in the simplest terms of capitalism, this is the last leg of automation needed to fully eliminate human quirks from the risk profile. Automated consumption.
Has anyone ever written a sci fi story about the rise of the machines where the machines destroyed their creators simply by consuming all available resources.
I see herds of solar powered AVs disrupting the natural world, being churned out of fully automated factories while the humans are increasingly agoraphobic and incapable of even basic manual tasks.
Its gonna be great.
No. Much like trickle down has been proven to be specious at best, down right destructive at worst, and since the world seems to revolve around lowest common denominator democracy; the fallacy "innovation" depends on investment is effective fear mongering, designed to keep the "let em eat cake" people safe from the rest of us, by sustaining the illusion that their consumer products are essential, most simply are not .
Progress will occur in all respects whether or not some asshole gets exorbitantly rich from it. I am confident of this. Good ideas are a currency all their own, and actually have more to do with nature than dollars or pounds.
What is really happening is that the people most responsible for the lack of sustainability of the current world are not content to steal your present, but your future as well, and has always been the case, winners and losers are basically defined by whether or not they survive.
In terms of conservation and other economies, autonomous vehicles reminds me of when someone bums a cigarette - the solicited complies with the request, the solicitor then asks for a light, to which the solicited replies "You want me to smoke it for you to?" as a way to bust their balls.
I keep thinking we are looking for ways to accelerate the consumption of natural resources to the point we won't even need human beings to ruin the environment.
Per passenger mile would also account for the fact that US, my guess, has more single occupant vehicle miles than elsewhere. This, too increases the numbers. I think there is larger issue of propriety to question anyway. Who says anyone has the right to automate consumption in this fashion, hopefully, becoming self determining about tech usage will someday not be immediately as as Luddite, but pratical. Do we really need to automate the idea of commuting too far to some workplace to do a lot of mostly useless self serving nonsense, or do we begin to really consider what societal transformations are looming. This is not real progress, nor is it sustainable. For example: What will the selling points be for future generations of autonomous vehicles, will this lead to fleet preservation and conservation?
Don't forget the number of likely empty cars trying to get to their next passenger. My guess is the end result will be a reflexive, double-long rush hour as the AVs go to home base or some such nonsense. Commuting is the problem, if we could only use our cars only when we need to travel (mainly recreationally I would think) outside the normal human range, and only had to travel within the normal human range to do whatever the hell is is we need to do on average the situation would be improved. The only people working to "solve" this are the one's deeply invested in the current format.
I think the problem for the employee is that Google has no ability to distinguish itself from his position, so their only option is to fire him to assert their own difference, since, they, by their own machinery, will now be forever linked with his views (it was referred to as "The Google Memo"). Whether any of his observations or assertions were valid is beside the point, the most important thing to Google is not the truth, no matter what it may be, but their ability to manage perceptions, regardless of the validity. I would presume Mr. Assange is in the same business as Google in this respect.
You are correct, but I do think it is fair to mention that many people are afraid of what the institutions may not understand. Unintended effects are just that - Global Warming anyone?
Human life is not the only consideration, planet wide. We keep "improving" things to make them work within our flawed frameworks, the world doesn't have starving people in it, nor do we need to sacrifice technological progress because some people want to scale back our weird abstraction (economic value) to understand nature.
The tension provided compelling proof of validity of claims (x is safe, y is beneficial to all) is invaluable in my opinion, and proof is worth waiting for.
Seems to me, so far tech companies have escaped the kind of scrutiny, effectiveness be damned, of other industries where consumer safety is paramount - read auto industry. Their profit margins reflects a position of privilege. I wonder how interested they would be in principles if they had to operate at fast food margins. I wonder how concerned they would be for our safety and well being.
Say what you will about the government, it is its job to protect us, competent or not. I, for one, will never be comfortable relying on Tim Cook's good intentions.
I am a little disappointed that more of my ilk are not seeing this way. Apple is disingenuous on any stance. If the FBI abuses its power, its an abuse, the fact it is neccesary to investigate and prosecute crime is indisputable. Apple on the other hand is entirely dependent on their ability to sell whatever garbage they have produced. If Apple wasn't sitting on a literal mountain of cash, I believe they would simply comply.
This is closer to citizen's united than most people want to believe.
The previous poster said it well, and I only want to add, this may be perceived as a battle in the back door war, but perhaps it is a necessary battle for law enforcement. Consider the public service value of conserving their resources if they have cooperation of vendors.
Somebody makes battering ram, but I don't think they promote criminal behavior just to ensure the need.
I think a hovering drone gets no consideration. If the drone is on its way somewhere AND at a reasonable height, then maybe. Considering the purpose of a drone is to fly around (who the f**k cares) and possibly take pictures, it seems like a "right" that warrants little forbearance.
The journey they are likely making because of a commitment to an industrial age paradigm of work and production.The effort to eliminate the driver from the equation is equivalent to a right wing political revolution that most argumentative geeks have no concept of resisting.
Someday we will need a lemming law?
Sure, the insurance industry will allow that to transpire.
Insurance is a boondoggle already, and as a previous poster pointed out, and element of a subtle, insidious control system based on a set of assumptions catering to the most compliant, average contributors of any given populace. (At least in the matrix, they are being used as batteries)
Self driving cars, solve exactly zero problems, except one. Google shareholder ROI.
The idea that saved money is a a gain is a conceit of advertising agencies and other exploitative industries. Unspent currency has no analog in material by definition.This is also not copyright fraud, since no one is using the material to produce their own claimed original work, they are just listening/watching/reading it for crying out loud. The solution will never forcing an antiquated market model on a society that has moved on.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019