On Tue, 13 Oct 2015, 6:38am PDT
How Hawkings is wrong,
This was already posted and discussed.
The author says:
Stephen Hawking has done a Reddit AMA and much of it is both interesting and about AI which isn’t what I’m about here. However, Hawking strays over into the economic effects of AI, of the robots coming to take all our jobs, and sadly gets the answer entirely wrong. Thus proving Richard Feynman correct, that even great scientists working outside their own specialty can be just as dumb as the next guy.
I read part of that AMA, and what Hawking says is along the lines of this. So far we have seen declines in real incomes as technology has improved production,making only the investing class richer.
This is a simple fact. And what Richard Feynman says about scientists sometimes being stupid is irrelevant. Hawking is hopeful, but just observing the very obvious current trend.
Some will argue that since our technology is so awesome, and since couples now always both work, we still have a lot of current adults that have lifestyles better than their parents. Okay. Maybe on average just barely. But that's with two incomes instead of one. The truth is that there is already an observable trend of increased production and wealth due to automation and technology going mostly to the rich.
Why will robots be any different ? Some robots will be used to make corporations more profitable. Some may be consumer items to make our lives better. But these will just be more toys that we feel we need to buy. If too many jobs are lost, then perhaps we get a guaranteed income, allowing us to consume. But that will be just a variation on what welfare, food stamps and tax credits now do for people with incomes too low (or zero) to live on.
If the author disagrees, he should spend a little less time talking about Feynman and how Hawking is wrong, and a little more time explaining why the obvious trends in place are going to change.
I read the rest. What an idiot. Really Forbes ? On Tue, 13 Oct 2015, 6:08am PDT
CA updates right to vote.,
Eligible citizens are registered to vote when they show up at a Department of Motor Vehicles office to obtain a driver’s license or state ID.
Eligible = has driver license or ID card. citizenship isn't required.
FortWAyne should not be eligible to vote if he thinks this is even remotely possible. It proves he is far too stupid to be voting. How could you possibly interpret that sentence in that way ? Eligible in that context obviously means eligible to register to vote. I.e. they are a citizen of the U.S and a resident of California.
I suppose in this sentence from FW's linked piece he also thinks eligible means eligible for a derivers license ?
(The federal National Voter Registration Act of 1993 already requires states to give eligible voters the opportunity to register to vote when they apply for a new or renewed driver’s license.)
It's just becoming automatic in Ca., which makes sense. What harm is there in being registered to vote if you are eligible ? Don't worry, this isn't going to very many more people (read impoverished liberal takers) to vote