|
xthnru posted:So much for ever sleeping again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENTC-mAQ0tI
|
# ? Mar 18, 2016 06:55 |
|
|
# ? Jun 10, 2024 12:59 |
|
Volcott posted:Good, maybe they'll find a less ethically inflexible buyer. I want killbots fighting our oil wars, drat it. The worst thing about the Cold War ending was that we were denied a future in which giant robot fights determined international negotiations https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUxDmKFCD2o
|
# ? Mar 18, 2016 10:10 |
|
Filthy Hans posted:The worst thing about the Cold War ending was that we were denied a future in which giant robot fights determined international negotiations Maybe that future can still happen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iofS5OJMewE Some Pinko Commie fucked around with this message at 12:31 on Mar 18, 2016 |
# ? Mar 18, 2016 12:29 |
|
US nuclear weapon platforms.
|
# ? Mar 18, 2016 15:38 |
|
I actually like FiveThirtyEight, but this poo poo is how I used to pad essays back in middle school. Jesus loving christ.
|
# ? Mar 18, 2016 17:31 |
|
trapped mouse posted:
Only quoting because I took as a class on Fuzzy Logic last semester from a prominent...fuzzy logic professor... and it was dope as hell.
|
# ? Mar 18, 2016 17:38 |
|
Hot Karl Marx posted:
That's exactly the point. Mongols were bad dudes, and American Prosperity Gospel has adopted the Mongol attitude towards the poor (before Kublai converted to Buddhism, called "idolatry" in Polo's text).
|
# ? Mar 18, 2016 17:51 |
|
Just saw in PYF: http://i.imgur.com/0CIltih.webm
|
# ? Mar 18, 2016 19:17 |
|
Guavanaut posted:
The illustration comes from a Soviet civil defense pamphlet from 1986: The entire thing can be found here. For some reason, the delivery systems of other nuclear nations than the US were of no interest.
|
# ? Mar 18, 2016 19:41 |
|
Kopijeger posted:And that's a pretty ridiculous assumption about the Space Shuttle. Hence the Buran
|
# ? Mar 18, 2016 20:14 |
|
Kopijeger posted:And that's a pretty ridiculous assumption about the Space Shuttle. its not that ridiculous - from the soviet cold war perspective, the shuttle makes a lot more rational sense as a stealth spaceplane bomber because what it was actually used for - a complicated, risky, not very efficient method of delivering small payloads at great cost into space - is pretty fuckin dumb. it clearly had some military applications just looking at it, and since you want to plan for the worst, like a sudden stealth strike on moscow, it gets incorporated into america's nuclear arsenal (also justifies building one of the things yourself) http://idlewords.com/2005/08/a_rocket_to_nowhere.htm quote:Future archaeologists trying to understand what the Shuttle was for are going to have a mess on their hands. Why was such a powerful rocket used only to reach very low orbits, where air resistance and debris would limit the useful lifetime of a satellite to a few years? Why was there both a big cargo bay and a big crew compartment? What kind of missions would require people to assist in deploying a large payload? Why was the Shuttle intentionally crippled so that it could not land on autopilot? Why go through all the trouble to give the Shuttle large wings if it has no jet engines and the glide characteristics of a brick? Why build such complex, adjustable main engines and then rely on the equivalent of two giant firecrackers to provide most of the takeoff thrust? Why use a glass thermal protection system, rather than a low-tech ablative shield? And having chosen such a fragile method of heat protection, why on earth mount the orbiter on the side of the rocket, where things will fall on it during launch? don't miss this hilarious footnote quote:The Soviet Shuttle, the Buran (snowstorm) was an aerodynamic clone of the American orbiter, but incorporated many original features that had been considered and rejected for the American program, such as all-liquid rocket boosters, jet engines, ejection seats and an unmanned flight capability. You know you're in trouble when the Russians are adding safety features to your design.
|
# ? Mar 18, 2016 20:58 |
|
vyelkin posted:That's exactly the point. Mongols were bad dudes, and American Prosperity Gospel has adopted the Mongol attitude towards the poor (before Kublai converted to Buddhism, called "idolatry" in Polo's text). sorry, was just assuming you were trying to make the mongols sound like saints. theres been a movement recently to see the mongolians who invaded as benevolent leaders who took things too far sometimes. linked cause of prop decapitated heads http://i.imgur.com/wFXlMW8.png
|
# ? Mar 18, 2016 21:57 |
|
|
# ? Mar 19, 2016 02:45 |
|
gently caress SNEEP posted:Only quoting because I took as a class on Fuzzy Logic last semester from a prominent...fuzzy logic professor... and it was dope as hell. Was it Ol' Lotfi himself? I can't believe he's not only alive but still working at 95. It's amazing to think we still live in the same generation of people that invented almost every innovative computer thing. It's funny to think how far his work in fuzzy extends, from house appliances all the way to the social level. I created some systems with fuzzy logic that made some job positions obsolete. Dude is almost falling apart but he's still researching. Actually looks pretty good for 95.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2016 03:47 |
|
|
# ? Mar 19, 2016 04:14 |
|
The joke is that roads are the ancient evil libertarians fear above all else. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oiWPNYr30I
|
# ? Mar 19, 2016 09:10 |
|
nerdz posted:I created some systems with fuzzy logic that made some job positions obsolete.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2016 12:55 |
|
Don't blame nerdz because our society is hosed up. In a sane society replacing unnecessary work with technology would be a good thing.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2016 14:19 |
|
WLMortis posted:Don't blame nerdz because our society is hosed up. In a sane society replacing unnecessary work with technology would be a good thing.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2016 15:09 |
|
Baronjutter posted:I don't even know what this means or who the guy in the background is or what this meme is but I figured it related to this thread???
|
# ? Mar 19, 2016 18:21 |
|
|
# ? Mar 19, 2016 20:26 |
|
WLMortis posted:Don't blame nerdz because our society is hosed up. In a sane society replacing unnecessary work with technology would be a good thing. "one in ten thousand" can make a "technological breakthrough" capable of "supporting all the rest". Sorry, techno-utopianism is just as facile, magical, and worthless of a philosophy as anarcho-capitalism e: Seriously, it just substitutes "the invisible hand of the market!" with "science!" ee: of course your original point is quite fine, but I would argue that the problem is exactly the philosophy that image conveys. "Breakthroughs" applied without societal and humanitarian context can be wholly disfunctional and malignant. "More Science", in and of itself, is not always the answer. Hubis fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Mar 19, 2016 |
# ? Mar 19, 2016 20:40 |
|
Hubis posted:"one in ten thousand" can make a "technological breakthrough" capable of "supporting all the rest". It's not just calling for 'more science!', it's calling for an end to poo poo like this: Possibly by radical or utopian means like the abolishment of the wage system altogether, but it seems like a root cause of the problem has been identified or proposed and it isn't just 'insufficient breakthroughs'.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2016 21:06 |
|
Jesus Christ In 2010, the Cuyahoga County Recorder's Office in Ohio was sued when it decided to charge $2 per page for photocopies of public documents. The following scene is a deposition from that court case. The dialogue is presented verbatim. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZbqAMEwtOE
|
# ? Mar 19, 2016 22:05 |
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoNMB-7ZwFk
|
# ? Mar 19, 2016 23:22 |
|
shrike82 posted:Jesus Christ http://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000004115589/verbatim-expert-witness.html edit: On further research, 'a number' appears to be four, and those two are the only entertaining ones. Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Mar 20, 2016 |
# ? Mar 19, 2016 23:53 |
|
Volcott posted:The joke is that roads are the ancient evil libertarians fear above all else. How can you post this and not post the amazing second half? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeXu3XSM9-c
|
# ? Mar 20, 2016 00:36 |
|
Guavanaut posted:Isn't the philosophy that image conveys is that technological progress already is providing increases in productivity but the bad part is that people as a whole are not reaping the rewards of that? Except that the quote doesn't deride income inequality or the fact that Capital tends to concentrate wealth unfairly. Instead, it rails against "inspectors of inspectors, and people who make insturments for inspectors of inspectors". It's a grumpy academic bristling at the inconvenience of bureaucracy, and indirectly arguing that government only exists as a type of patronage program full of people doing jobs that only serve to justify their own existence. If only we got rid of all this wastefulness and let true innovators, those special "one in ten thousand" get back to doing great things to push society forward, we'd all be better off. Sound familiar? Don't confuse this: for this: e: to put it another way, what Fuller is advocating is that innovative minds should be freer from the requirements of society to create things which would increase GDP/resources. What your graph indicates is that is not at all the problem, but rather it's the allocation thereof. Fuller's position is at best naiive in assuming that overall abundance would eliminate local scarcity. Hubis fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Mar 20, 2016 |
# ? Mar 20, 2016 00:37 |
|
Hubis posted:Except that the quote doesn't deride income inequality or the fact that Capital tends to concentrate wealth unfairly. Instead, it rails against "inspectors of inspectors, and people who make insturments for inspectors of inspectors". It's a grumpy academic bristling at the inconvenience of bureaucracy, and indirectly arguing that government only exists as a type of patronage program full of people doing jobs that only serve to justify their own existence. If only we got rid of all this wastefulness and let true innovators, those special "one in ten thousand" get back to doing great things to push society forward, we'd all be better off. Sound familiar? I think you can call Fuller naive and overly Utopian, but it seems unfair to lump him in with the Objectivists (although maybe the previous quote doesn't do the best job of separating them). I can't see Ayn ever holding these views: Wikipedia posted:He was convinced that the accumulation of relevant knowledge, combined with the quantities of major recyclable resources that had already been extracted from the earth, had attained a critical level, such that competition for necessities was not necessary anymore. Cooperation had become the optimum survival strategy. "Selfishness," he declared, "is unnecessary and hence-forth unrationalizable.... War is obsolete." He criticized previous utopian schemes as too exclusive, and thought this was a major source of their failure. To work, he thought that a utopia needed to include everyone. (For the record, I don't think science is the silver bullet that's going to fix all the world's problems by itself; I just don't think we should hold off on inventing an automatic sewer-cleaning machine just because there are currently people employed in cleaning the sewer manually)
|
# ? Mar 20, 2016 03:29 |
I don't think this guy should be intentionally upsetting the robot, it will remember. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY
|
|
# ? Mar 20, 2016 05:36 |
|
Volcott posted:The joke is that roads are the ancient evil libertarians fear above all else. I would say you've been delving too deep into /pol/, but I tried trolling with some far left ideas a while ago (automation ushering in systemic unemployment, promoting a GMT) and found a lot of people agreeing with me. Maybe I'm the one who went too deep? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgEPlr6LIek
|
# ? Mar 20, 2016 05:46 |
|
|
# ? Mar 20, 2016 06:47 |
|
WLMortis posted:Don't blame nerdz because our society is hosed up. In a sane society replacing unnecessary work with technology would be a good thing. If you allow me to defend myself, the jobs I made obsolete were exactly of the higher level "assistant inspector" sort, and probably would be obsolete even without my systems if the owner of the company cared enough to know more about his own company trade. Most of the time, they actually only alleviated the workload of workers that were being made to do the jobs of 3 people or more and still had to keep tabs on a lot of metrics. Even without automation, the companies under employ and overwork people. I don't even remember one case where they caused employee downsizing, only increased employee productivity (which of course was not properly rewarded).
|
# ? Mar 20, 2016 06:52 |
|
|
# ? Mar 20, 2016 06:54 |
|
yikes, like locusts https://streamable.com/lsb6
|
# ? Mar 20, 2016 09:18 |
|
WLMortis posted:I think you can call Fuller naive and overly Utopian, but it seems unfair to lump him in with the Objectivists (although maybe the previous quote doesn't do the best job of separating them). I can't see Ayn ever holding these views: To be clear, I think Fuller is in the former category (naiive utopian) rather than actually Objectivist; however, I think that naiive utopianism unintentionally enabled some of the disparity that came to categorize the latter part of the 20th century. Telling people that the future would be without want because technology would just hand-wave it all away and so encouraging them to not worry about current iniquity or the social implications of how the technology would be applied allowed the gains those advances realized to be harnessed by the empowered. nerdz posted:If you allow me to defend myself, the jobs I made obsolete were exactly of the higher level "assistant inspector" sort, and probably would be obsolete even without my systems if the owner of the company cared enough to know more about his own company trade. Most of the time, they actually only alleviated the workload of workers that were being made to do the jobs of 3 people or more and still had to keep tabs on a lot of metrics. Even without automation, the companies under employ and overwork people. I don't even remember one case where they caused employee downsizing, only increased employee productivity (which of course was not properly rewarded). Yeah, I'm also not going to attack this in particular. It's more the knee-jerk assertion people have that it's not up to people who create technology to worry about how it's used, or what kind of world it would create. I find that there is a personality quirk among engineers to love to solve technical problems for their own sake. That joyful inclination is valuable and maybe even critical to excelling and, potentially, elevating civilization with their craft. This goes along with a pressure from capitalism to view that work as a 'product' which should be employed in whatever way is most 'productive' regardless of how it affects the common cause of humanity. Ultimately, my point is that we need to realize that the proper way to harness the benefits of technology to better humanity is not to simply embrace an inverse-Luddism; rather, we need to understand that scientific and technological progress is really just another form of philosophy and ideology in that it changes how we think about and interact with both the world and those around us. I think there is a tendency to create technology to solve a technical issue and just leaving the rest of the social structure to deal with the side effects. In reality, the "problem" that an automated worker of some sort isn't the actual work to be done -- it's actually a socio-economic problem of having to pay a human to do that work. If my robot replaces that human for far less cost then I've achieved half of the goal, but simply eschewing the replaced worker isn't really a good solution because of the social side effects. Pictured: An engineer intimately aware with the responsibility we have for the technology we create e: People losing employment because we are able to do those jobs in a more efficient manner using technology is not an argument not to create that technology, but an argument against a socio-economic system that doesn't compensate for that. But I think it's incumbent upon those who create that technology to at least be active advocates for societal change necessary to make their work fit in a moral society rather than just washing their hands of it as not being their problem. Hubis fucked around with this message at 15:26 on Mar 20, 2016 |
# ? Mar 20, 2016 15:22 |
|
shrike82 posted:Jesus Christ There's nothing surprising about this. Depositions are fact-finding operations and your "job" as a defendant is to provide as little information as possible. We're instructed in medical malpractice depositions to ask ourselves: 1) Is this a question? 2) If yes, is the question directed at me? 3) If yes, can I answer the question without clarification? If one can find any point that might in any circumstances need clarification, one refuses to answer until it has been addressed. Again, the purpose isn't to be be helpful. It's just the opposite. Your goal is to make the other legal team give up in frustration.
|
# ? Mar 20, 2016 15:54 |
|
|
# ? Mar 20, 2016 16:07 |
|
Love it or Leave it
|
# ? Mar 20, 2016 16:10 |
|
|
# ? Jun 10, 2024 12:59 |
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jre-aMAgP5I
|
# ? Mar 20, 2016 16:27 |