#276 2017-02-01 12:40:39

https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/53026157/boston_dynamics_handle.0.gif

Online

 

#277 2017-02-07 16:14:48

https://i.imgur.com/ULfeWwx.gif

Last edited by choad (2017-02-07 21:18:24)

Offline

 

#278 2017-02-07 20:38:07

XregnaR wrote:

https://i.imgur.com/ULfeWwx.gifv

I will now have nightmares until I die.

Offline

 

#279 2017-02-09 00:03:56

I'd call it an excellent place to start.

Offline

 

#280 2017-02-09 06:48:49

JetRx wrote:

I'd call it an excellent place to start.

Stopped reading right about here:  "forcing government agencies to keep on older employees"

http://high-street.org/uploads/11_childrenofthecorn.jpg

and a valuable cross-link for you you totalitarian SOB.

Last edited by Emmeran (2017-02-09 06:50:50)

Offline

 

#281 2017-03-07 12:07:49

https://giant.gfycat.com/PopularBlueBagworm.gif

Online

 

#282 2017-03-08 20:54:49

Lotsa y'all mofos gonna be in da  unemployment line...though boomers might dodge the "direct hit". 

Starting to think crazy old Uncle Ted was right... and warrants a re-examination of his tome. 

Another thing he astutely pointed out: 
"Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect" terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from privileged strata of society."  Hi Smudgie!

Who'll they soon be calling to build that new house?
https://youtu.be/xktwDfasPGQ

Last edited by JetRx (2017-03-08 21:55:14)

Offline

 

#284 2017-03-09 18:38:30

More accurate video would depict handing the kid a "pink slip" vs. the gloves & hat.

Last edited by JetRx (2017-03-09 18:38:58)

Offline

 

#285 2017-03-14 17:42:08

Why (other than marketing) build a robot to make burgers? A simple conveyor belt with cookers and dispensers would do the job. I'll bet you could fit the whole thing inside a dishwasher sized cabinet. Custom toppings and everything.

Next job would be a build a dish processing robot with vision to "see" dirt, scrub pots, etc. Handle the really bad jobs first. Just load in pots and pans into the input hopper and get clean stuff out. Even beaners don't want that job.

Offline

 

#288 2017-05-04 04:41:06

https://high-street.org/sidepic/winslow.homer.jpg


~ click ~

https://high-street.org/sidepic/rhodes19.pnghttps://high-street.org/sidepic/ketch.jpghttps://high-street.org/sidepic/sloops.pnghttps://high-street.org/sidepic/sinkingship.pnghttps://high-street.org/sidepic/johnkerry.png

Offline

 

#290 2017-05-04 09:51:48

I know I, for one, have been waiting for this most significant advance in human progress; removing humans from human leisure time activities. More fun will be had, and with greater efficiency too.

I can only hope that progress at designing a crowd of robot spectators continues to advance at breakneck speed. Humanity will be a much better thing once we get rid of all the people.

Last edited by Smudge (2017-05-04 10:14:23)

Online

 

#291 2017-05-04 13:37:11

Three Rules of Robotics
First Law: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
Second Law: A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Zeroth Law invented by Robots: Robots are human beings

Offline

 

#292 2017-05-04 13:41:27

Clearly removing people from the problem will simplify things.  So much of the  architecture of a vessel goes into keeping the humans alive for long enough to rescue them. The cost of construction and operation would be so much less. I wonder what the cost/ benefit ratio would be if instead of rescuing the robot vessel, you just let few burn and self-scuttle once they get into trouble.

As it is, we were told just a few years ago that the humans could no longer be trusted to do what is right and would now have to be tied to their jobs onboard with electronic leashes. The discussions by the international standards bodies around this were hilarious to sit in on. I was not alone in suggesting that shock collars would be more effective.

Offline

 

#293 2017-05-04 15:16:12

The tech that can robotically pilot a punt across a pond can, in fundamental terms, pilot a payload on a solar sail.

Remember, robots are not limited to the six human senses.

electronic leashes.

Just push the button every 108 minutes and nobody gets hurt...

Last edited by GooberMcNutly (2017-05-04 15:17:50)

Offline

 

#294 2017-05-04 15:55:05

Well sure...

But at some point you have to remind yourself that they entire purpose of all of the exercises that led up to this was to help people; to make things better for ourselves. When the processes have morphed to the point that they make people not only unnecessary, but a "too expensive" luxury, it's time to return to first principals and basic questions.

I can easily envision a future where we have worked ourselves down a blind alley which is so completely self defeating (and inescapable) that the only thing we can conceive of to survive the blunder is to regress to, and adopt technology, at a more primitive level -- by force if necessary -- in order to make the world work again such that it fulfills human needs. We could, if pushed, return to some form of simpler agrarian society.

Think Amish, and their limited and frozen technology.

I've yet to hear a single person come forward and even give the most cursory explanation or suggestions for how we survive the INEVITABLE economic (first) and social collapse (secondarily) if and when the various predictions about loss of jobs come to fruition. The world is already suffering under a problem of massive underemployment (during a period when the political mood is to dramatically reduce spending of the safety net). What happens when we add another 50% of the people to the ranks of the unemployed? A recent Oxford study predicted this to be reality within 25 years. What happens to consumer driven economies when there are simply too few consumers? Continue to reduce prices by getting rid of people and shifting the work load to machines? What happens to social cohesion when the majority of people struggle to simply survive? What happens to the tax base when incomes dry up? Shall we tax the robots? If a robot can do the work of a dozen people, don't we have to tax the robot at twelve times the rate of the person -- just to avoid slipping backwards?

We're just beginning to wade into this territory, and already we see some of the responses. Donald Trump would be one of those responses. So now we have all of the same extraordinarily complex problems we had before Trump, only with a complete moron at the helm to boot. Anybody think we're going to skate through the next hundred years without some disruptions on the scale of WWII? I don't.

Online

 

#295 2017-05-04 21:35:52

We must do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian-Darwinian theory, he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.
--Buckminster Fuller

Offline

 

#296 2017-05-05 00:43:50

Yes, Baywolfe.

I suspect that we will be forced into Socialism, at least initially, simply to avert societal collapse. If enough people can't survive, they will bring the house down with them as they go under. As well they should.

Online

 

#297 2017-05-05 09:18:22

Smudge wrote:

Yes, Baywolfe.

I suspect that we will be forced into Socialism, at least initially, simply to avert societal collapse. If enough people can't survive, they will bring the house down with them as they go under. As well they should.

As a die-hard Science Fiction nerd, I prefer the Gene Roddenberry Star Trek view of earth in the future where all these problems have been solved and people are doing what truly fulfills them.  Find your bliss, as Joseph Campbell used to say.  Of course, in Roddenberry's future, all the aggressive Alpha Males are killed off in a massive nuclear war leaving the pacifists to rebuild the planet.

Offline

 

Board footer

high-street.org