People tend to forget about one thing - in previous industrial revolutions jobs changed, but people were added and removed from the pool slowly and predictably. This time automatons not only take jobs from people, they are also in a sense added to the economy as additional workers.
Think about it this way - previously if someone came up with a more efficient way to do a given job, out of 10 people 9 lost employment, but you still needed that one person to do the job. With automation you get rid of 10 people, and add one additional "worker" to the pool of workers. So now 10 people have to compete not only with themselves but also with one robot that can do job of 10 people.
it will be tried, but it's really impossible to implement. first reason - you can't force all countries to do the same. second - how do you define automation? will i need to pay taxes on scripts I use to automate some of my jobs? Will I need to pay automation tax on my roomba? or dishwasher? If the robot does not replace any worker, but makes job or current workers easier and faster will it be taxed?
No different than how H1B's are implemented, you'll see a "no automated cars for hire" law, if necessary it'll happen city by city if the political will isn't there Federally. It will be a very specific proscription, likely very industry specific, because only a large number of impacted workers will have the political clout to establish such laws. And it might even be only city by city, rather than at a Federal level.
There are ways in which H1B is imperfect, doesn't work, and isn't fair. There will be ways in which making automated cars for hire illegal will be imperfect, doesn't work, and isn't fair. But those attributes haven't driven the former into the dustbin yet. If anything it's about to get stronger under the current political climate, so there's no reason to think the later won't be successful, at the least as a delay tactic so that automation isn't as disruptive as hypothesized.
Also, as a country establishes a more isolationist attitude, it matters less what the rest of the world does, and the rhetoric right now is distinctly a more isolationist attitude.
1) A lot of flight tests can't be done without a large fraction of passengers on the plane.
2) It may make getting to the final end state faster (though maybe not), but it means you don't get any benefits until you make the switch. Doing things incrementally means you start seeing benefits much earlier. Classic throughput/latency tradeoff.
What's better to end up in the final end state later, or lose customers because your software is crashing and is harder to maintain because you're introducing totally new way to do stuff?
I'm not sure what sort of distinction you are trying to make here. Again, the two options are:
1) One big switch. Can probably be done faster, but has more risk that big problems won't be discovered until late in the game and has user-visible benefits until the switch happens.
2) Incremental changes. Take longer to complete, but allow for better mid-course correction and can show user-visible benefits much earlier in the process.
Which of those will lose more customers? It really depends on the market reality and at how successfully the incremental changes can be made.
I might be wrong but I think this was created mainly to monitor progress in AI research. If someone uses OpenAI Universe and can get better results than virtually everyone else, they will be able to get to them first.
This is a much simpler rocket than the Falcon 9. For one, it's suborbital. Its flights are so much simpler than the full orbital injections and hypersonic reentries the Falcon flies.
A quick list of things Blue Origin hasn't done yet:
I think it is safe to say that by 2020 the Internet as we know it today will not exists. All we will have is a bunch of walled gardens, under full surveillance from both the government and corporations. And most people will not even notice or care.
I think it's safe to say you're exaggerating, and while there will be local pockets of utter confusion (North Korea, some US ISPs) on the whole it will be fine.
That's not to say we don't need to fight for rights, to keep this sort of thing from happening, but that I have confidence that we can and will fight these things successfully.
If in 2010 I told you the next presidential candidate for the USA was retweeting 4chan memes, you'd have probably said I was exaggerating. All I'm saying is things are changing quicker than we can imagine.
I don't think I'm exaggerating. When you read this article, and read what corporations are doing, and politicians are advocating, it's easy to see where this is going. In addition to that you have ICANN stewardship transfer, which might make it easier for other countries to influence how the Internet works. We also have growing number of hacks/leaks that will be used to push the "need for firewalls" and "warnings" from experts that "someone" if probing our defences. It all does not make me hopeful that we can keep the internet free.
Between surveillance states, cyber attacks, and probable rising energy costs, it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of things general became much less global. If you want to hear one of the greatest pessimists of our age, I recommend James Howard Kunstler. He's written some books, does some podcast appearances, and keeps a blog. He's the first person I ever saw put forth a convincing argument for why the internet may be a temporary phenomenon.
There's too much money or power otherwise. Perhaps the discussion to have is not about the degrees of surveillance or walled gardens, but public access to mass surveillance records collected by government agencies. If everyone had access to everything, it would be a check on the absolute power of powerful institutions to corrupt them absolutely.
I'm not evangelizing the idea, I just think it's something worth debating and I don't see enough of it yet.
Nah, just point your DNS queries to 8.8.8.8 (two times Adolf Hitler's birthday, easy to remember) and you'll be fine. Or, if Google is blocked, use another root server. Or, if all root servers are blocked, use a VPN. Or, if all VPNs are blocked, invent a distributed DNS system that adds .realuk as a new top-level domain.
If VPNs are blocked then DNS filtering likely is not your only problem. You would already be behind a something akin to the great firewall.
And you also have to consider that when you start using counter-measures then you're already retreating and relying on foreign, more-free societies to support you. What if they succumb to the same thing too which obviously is not so far-fetched since it already happened to your society?
