|
Yes but Google defines "evil" as "anything that interferes with profit"!
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended.
I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended.
Freedom doesn't mean the absence of things you don't like.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
Wow! Running a 7 year old version of Android... that's a little crazy and maybe a little stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Mullikin wrote: little stupid
Why so? It has an uncomparable good quality of hardware (and I mean all the hard-ware) among all that I can have today...
I use it as a phone (3-5 calls a day), as WhatsApp (~30 messages in and out), as Waze (twice a year) and as Gmail client (twice a day)... So the expectations are low and no reason to switch...
I also have the size problem. It has a 2.8" screen, perfectly good to my pocket and hand, today when I ask for a small size they offer a 4.3" or larger (I tried)... I do not feel like one to go around with that size...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Mobile OSes (in general) are all fairly "young". Android (in particular) has shown it's immaturity by exhibiting MANY security issues over the years. Google (as well as the carriers and handset makers) has been lax in plugging these security issues on older phones.
So... while your hardware may be rock solid, your OS is not. By having it connected to the internet in any fashion you not only risk your own security - you risk others' security as well by being a conduit.
Please update to something newer... think of the children! 
|
|
|
|
|
Come on! There is no info about me on that phone that you can not get by searching the web!
Ans the kids will not touch my phone for no prize in the world - they value their fingers... 
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Saw this on TV recently on a program about robots: [^]
I can envision a future where robots do almost all the manual work, and crucially, they are payed a wage and taxed at 100% on it. ie, the company employing them pays, at a reduced rate, the commensurate wage a person would have received, direct to the government as tax. Of course this payment has to reflect the costs of the robot to the company but given the robot works a 3 shift day its productivity is much higher than a human's, so this revenue is substantial.
This revenue is then paid out to the public at a fixed amount per month per person, regardless of whether they work or not. Products produced by robots are much cheaper, allowing for greater consumption.
Many people would therefore lead a life of leisure, maintained by the state. Others who either enjoy work, want to earn more money, or cant be replaced by robots, such as professionals, ie us lot, doctors, lawyers etc continue as before, but perhaps with reduced hours.
An interesting side effect is that cheap labour in the third world, which increasingly becomes less cheap as more and more companies try to exploit it, is undercut, and the labour floods back to the advanced countries that can best implement robotics.
So we all effectively live like a plantation owner of the past, off the backs of the labour of slaves, just metal in this case, and free of the moral implications.
Not a bad lifestyle. When do we start! 
|
|
|
|
|
Look for the ballad of John Henry to explain what will happen; it is not like the worker will get more spare time - but for the first time in history, they'll be redundant completely.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, that is what I said. Redundant completely. Did you not understand?
|
|
|
|
|
No, just confused.
Munchies_Matt wrote: Many people would therefore lead a life of leisure, maintained by the state.
I seriously doubt that.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
They would have to be, and can be, on the income generated by the robots.
|
|
|
|
|
"Have to"? How much income does a steam-engine generate?
It'll mean a lot of people becoming redundant and thus, dying of starvation.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Depends on how much it is taxed.
You did read what I wrote didnt you?
|
|
|
|
|
I read it, and dismiss it as wishfull thinking. How much is a steam-engine taxed?
The automation already endangered many profession. How much is a spread-sheet taxed? It won't happen; our production has climbed, and so have profits. Don't expect a break soon.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
If we are going to automate, and we will, because we have started already, then in order to halt a revoloution by the staving unemployed masses they will have to be paid, the revenue for whichi will come from taxing the robots as if they were workers
So, worker 1 gets 100 euros a day, and pays 30 in tax to the govt.
A robot, works three shifts, and gets 100 euros a day. 30 goes to the govt, 70 to the employer (he actually just keeps the robots wages), This pays for the robots.
The robot is producing 3 times as many goods though, so their price falls, thus making it cheaper for the ex worker to live on the 30 euros of tax the govt now gives him to sit around and do nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: in order to halt a revoloution by the staving unemployed masses they will have to be paid
Suddenly you sound like a communist.
The unemployed masses may learn a new trade, and try to become productive members again. Non-productive members are not required on the planet.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
No, a realist. If you keep the peasants fed and watered they are a content bunch.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: No, a realist. If you keep the peasants fed and watered they are a content bunch.
Again, I already mentioned that Maslow disagrees; the pyramid is also nothing new, and I'm not going to discuss its validity. Just pointing out that food and drinks is not enough.
..if they were, America would have lots of content people. No one would complain about not having internet, when given bread and water.
And did you seriously expect to be fed? Why? We already have cuter pets If you're superfluous, you can try to fend for yourself, as always was the case in history.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: food and drinks is not enough.
Isnt it?
It is for me. The four 'f's. Food, family, friends, and f***ing. Thats all a peasant needs (and me too. )
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: It is for me.
Psychology disagrees; lock up a person with family and friends, give them food. Lets see how long you want to remain there in that Utopia
Munchies_Matt wrote: Thats all a peasant needs
"Did the Lord say that machines ought to take the place of the living; then what is the substitute for bread and beans? Do engines get rewarded, for their steam?"
Yes, the owner of the steam-engine will have the engine pay taxes, so you can laze about and do nothing. And we'll all live happily ever after 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Yes, the owner of the steam-engine will have the engine pay taxes, so you can laze about and do nothing. And we'll all live happily ever after
Precisely.
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like an awfull lot of people are going to be awfully dissappointed 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Look at the change since the 18th century.
Mechanisation = wealth for all.
Why wont that trend continue?
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: Why wont that trend continue?
I'm saying that the trend will continue; with no new income-taxes on property. And this "wealth for all" might not be so very inclusive at that point in the future, just as it is not now. 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Compared to the 17th century it is inclusive now.
|
|
|
|
|
Only for a small part of the world; other parts still know slavery, so we can remain "inclusive" in our small part.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
