First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply robot grocery carts coming to a walmart near you!
Sogno- 
45684 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/15/16

JanusCascade wrote:

Hackers will rule the world once everything is computerize!


shoot i gotta change my career quick
27271 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/15/16
maybe for grandma & grandpa..
19863 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
69 / M / Limbo
Offline
Posted 9/15/16 , edited 9/17/16
They're going to need to invest a fuck ton of money into those fat people scooters seeing as how pushing a cart of transfats is the only exercise some of those walmart shoppers get.
2248 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/15/16 , edited 9/15/16

JanusCascade wrote:

Hackers will rule the world once everything is computerize!


Hackers? Hell, take a look at the tech news regarding security issues in Internet of Things products. An Amazon account and a Github account and you're good to go - Baby monitors, webcams, door locks, house heating, take your pick.

If you're in the market for an appliance of any sort, make sure it's not "Connected"
18690 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F
Online
Posted 9/15/16

CasualObserver wrote:


JanusCascade wrote:

Hackers will rule the world once everything is computerize!


Hackers? Hell, take a look at the tech news regarding security issues in Internet of Things products. An Amazon account and a Github account and you're good to go - Baby monitors, webcams, door locks, house heating, take your pick.

If you're in the market for an appliance of any sort, make sure it's not "Connected"


make sure you are not in the DNCeither because it just got hacked AGAIN
35035 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 9/15/16 , edited 9/17/16
The way I see it the best response to automation isn't to try to fight it, but rather to adapt one's educational and economic systems to account for the diminished need for unskilled labour. Two important adjustments that would need to be made would be increasing access to tertiary education (ideally both technical/vocational and academic) so that those who can handle further training are able to get it and dissociation of labour and mere survival so that those who simply are not able to handle tertiary education and cannot find work are still able to survive. Three ways you might accomplish the latter objective would be to establish a command economy (not recommended since a lot of goods and services aren't well-suited for it), expanding the existing welfare state to accommodate a much larger number of people (this could work but is likely to not be very palatable), or establish an unconditional universal basic income (this seems the most broadly palatable option).

Of course, you could also just say "Screw the poor!" and let people starve to death, but then they're going to start smashing your machines and probably come for you afterward. So unless you like the idea of food riots and revolutions I'd steer as clear of that course as I would a command economy.
42405 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / New Jersey, USA
Offline
Posted 9/15/16
Still waiting for that walk through scanner to appear in supermarkets.
20765 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Online
Posted 9/15/16

redokami wrote:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/technologyinvesting/coming-to-a-walmart-near-you-robo-shopping-carts/ar-BBwbmoC?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=UE07DHP


they cant even have carts have functioning wheels lol


kinda cool if 5.1 million jobs weren't going to be taken away




"kinda cool if 5.1 million jobs weren't going to be taken away"

Hopefully eventually most things will be like this robotic.
Towards a society where people don't need to work as much and can live more comfortably.
20765 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Online
Posted 9/15/16

BlueOni wrote:

The way I see it the best response to automation isn't to try to fight it, but rather to adapt one's educational and economic systems to account for the diminished need for unskilled labour. Two important adjustments that would need to be made would be increasing access to tertiary education (ideally both technical/vocational and academic) so that those who can handle further training are able to get it and dissociation of labour and mere survival so that those who simply are not able to handle tertiary education and cannot find work are still able to survive. Three ways you might accomplish the latter objective would be to establish a command economy (not recommended since a lot of goods and services aren't well-suited for it), expanding the existing welfare state to accommodate a much larger number of people (this could work but is likely to not be very palatable), or establish an unconditional universal basic income (this seems the most broadly palatable option).

Of course, you could also just say "Screw the poor!" and let people starve to death, but then they're going to start smashing your machines and probably come for you afterward. So unless you like the idea of food riots and revolutions I'd steer as clear of that course as I would a command economy.



SHHH people aren't that smart they just think MAH JERBS
20765 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Online
Posted 9/15/16

CasualObserver wrote:


JanusCascade wrote:

Hackers will rule the world once everything is computerize!


Hackers? Hell, take a look at the tech news regarding security issues in Internet of Things products. An Amazon account and a Github account and you're good to go - Baby monitors, webcams, door locks, house heating, take your pick.

If you're in the market for an appliance of any sort, make sure it's not "Connected"


Eh that's really up to choice it's unlikely a hacker is going to use my house heating and if they did that's why a manual over-ride is important.

Shying away from connected technology cause some hackers can abuse it is stupid imo.
20765 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Online
Posted 9/15/16

DRO1 wrote:

They're going to need to invest a fuck ton of money into those fat people scooters seeing as how pushing a cart of transfats is the only exercise some of those walmart shoppers get.


they are working on a pill thats basically exercise in a pill ......not sure how it works but its in lab testing if that becomes a thing thats cool
35035 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 9/15/16 , edited 9/15/16

Ryulightorb wrote:

SHHH people aren't that smart they just think MAH JERBS


The problem isn't really a lack of intelligence, though. Rather, it's simultaneous recognition that the sort of changes I think would really help solve the problem would be difficult to get into place and that automation is an ever-advancing and immediately present force. The natural inclination under such circumstances is to try to slow down automation's advance since this offers the path of lesser resistance compared to radically changing the existing economic system to divorce labour and survival. To do the latter you have to overcome several hurdles that aren't so easily hopped, and even if everyone were to agree upon the objective hurdles would remain.

For example, people need energy and non-renewable fuel sources are still extremely important for providing it. Although renewable energy sources are now able to produce electricity in great amounts existing grid systems aren't necessarily able to withstand the sort of production they're capable of, and we lack a sufficient means for storing the excess until it's needed. It would be an essential part of maintaining long-term environmental sustainability and energy provision in a society where labour and survival were divorced to overcome this problem, and people recognise that.

For another example, there is a relatively widespread, deeply-held ethical outlook that labour and survival ought to be tied to one another in the name of morality and fairness. This viewpoint is based on the assumption that society is better viewed as a cloud of individuals whose associations ought to be as voluntarily and uniquely established as is reasonably possible and to which no individual is any more indebted than they choose to be rather than as a collective web of intrinsically, mutually reliant individuals who hold certain inherent responsibilities to one another by virtue of having inevitably materially benefited from others' contributions.

People in the former camp would argue that they shouldn't be expected to support someone who was unable to find work due to automation or support education initiatives designed to grant access to education for other people, and if such a view predominates you're not going to be able to divorce labour and survival even if available technology and resources could conceivably allow you to. It's not a matter of such individuals lacking intelligence, either. Rather, it's a matter of their having a fundamentally different view of what societies are, what the individuals that constitute societies' responsibilities to one another ought to be, and what these responsibilities ought to be based on. This is the fundamental dividing line between the economic left and right wings, and membership on one side or the other isn't a mark of intelligence. It's just that they view themselves, the people around them, and the societies they live in differently. I disagree more than I agree with economic individualism, obviously, but I understand where economic individualists are coming from.
20765 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Online
Posted 9/15/16

BlueOni wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:

SHHH people aren't that smart they just think MAH JERBS


The problem isn't really a lack of intelligence, though. Rather, it's simultaneous recognition that the sort of changes I think would really help solve the problem would be difficult to get into place and that automation is an ever-advancing and immediately present force. The natural inclination under such circumstances is to try to slow down automation's advance since this offers the path of lesser resistance compared to radically changing the existing economic system to divorce labour and survival. To do the latter you have to overcome several hurdles that aren't so easily hopped, and even if everyone were to agree upon the objective hurdles would remain.

For example, people need energy and non-renewable fuel sources are still extremely important for providing it. Although renewable energy sources are now able to produce electricity in great amounts existing grid systems aren't necessarily able to withstand the sort of production they're capable of, and we lack a sufficient means for storing the excess until it's needed. It would be an essential part of maintaining long-term environmental sustainability and energy provision in a society where labour and survival were divorced to overcome this problem, and people recognise that.

For another example, there is a relatively widespread, deeply-held ethical outlook that labour and survival ought to be tied to one another in the name of morality and fairness. This viewpoint is based on the assumption that society is better viewed as a cloud of individuals whose associations ought to be as voluntarily and uniquely established as is reasonably possible and to which no individual is any more indebted than they choose to be rather than as a collective web of intrinsically, mutually reliant individuals who hold certain inherent responsibilities to one another by virtue of having inevitably materially benefited from others' contributions.

People in the former camp would argue that they shouldn't be expected to support someone who was unable to find work due to automation or support education initiatives designed to grant access to education for other people, and if such a view predominates you're not going to be able to divorce labour and survival even if available technology and resources could conceivably allow you to. It's not a matter of such individuals lacking intelligence, either. Rather, it's a matter of their having a fundamentally different view of what societies are, what the individuals that constitute societies' responsibilities to one another ought to be, and what these responsibilities ought to be based on. This is the fundamental dividing line between the economic left and right wings, and membership on one side or the other isn't a mark of intelligence. It's just that they view themselves, the people around them, and the societies they live in differently. I disagree more than I agree with economic individualism, obviously, but I understand where economic individualists are coming from.



your right.

I guess for me i see another side of possibilities with jobs being fully automated even a future where people work less and go into fields they are interested in and make real progress.
16757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 9/15/16 , edited 9/15/16

BlueOni wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:

SHHH people aren't that smart they just think MAH JERBS

Although renewable energy sources are now able to produce electricity in great amounts existing grid systems aren't necessarily able to withstand the sort of production they're capable of, and we lack a sufficient means for storing the excess until it's needed. It would be an essential part of maintaining long-term environmental sustainability and energy provision in a society where labour and survival were divorced to overcome this problem, and people recognise that.


Uh, Hello? Nuclear power! We have enough former nuclear bomb material to power the nation for centuries. The newer plants are incapable of melting down because they use 5% enriched uranium instead of the 70% the older plants use. You can reprocess 90% of the nuclear waste and add a little fresh material then put it right back in the reactor. The remaining is not very radioactive as the radioactive parts get reprocessed.
35035 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 9/15/16

Rujikin wrote:

Uh, Hello? Nuclear power! We have enough former nuclear bomb material to power the nation for centuries. The newer plants are incapable of melting down because they use 5% enriched uranium instead of the 70% the older plants use. You can reprocess 90% of the nuclear waste and add a little fresh material then put it right back in the reactor. The remaining is not very radioactive as the radioactive parts get reprocessed.


Sure, and a combination of nuclear and renewable power sources depending upon whatever was geographically wisest is what I would envision as a good system. Great point.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.