Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
LB that reminded my of vanilla wafer and Saturday afternoons as a kid...lame , but entertaining. Thanks.
OJ, I continue to believe technology will be the place to invest even as one is replace by the next.
VF, somewhere between fast food and fast forward (many more jobs) is life as we know it. Those that step up the staircase of employment will look back fondly at the foundation these entry level jobs created. Remember someone was a paperboy before they became the editor of the paper they delivered.
Crash, you and I have grown up a bit here at Fundalarm and MFO. My offer for Oyster at Max's still stands...next time you're at your Fidelity office in CT.
VF, somewhere between fast food and fast forward (many more jobs) is life as we know it. Those that step up the staircase of employment will look back fondly at the foundation these entry level jobs created. Remember someone was a paperboy before they became the editor of the paper they delivered.
I wish I can be as sanguine as you feel. In such an advanced world a "paper boy" or whatever an analogous profession would be, might just remain a paper boy. Mobility up the food chain is not guaranteed just because people as a whole are more technologically advanced. Fact of the matter is people used to be able to somehow manage to live on a minimum wage of $2.50. They can't do that with $7.0
Yes, and another change is coming down the pike, one we touched on several months ago--- robotics.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2014/09/robot-jurisprudence WHEN the autonomous cars in Isaac Asimov's 1953 short story “Sally” encourage a robotic bus to dole out some rough justice to an unscrupulous businessman, the reader is to believe that the bus has contravened Asimov's first law of robotics, which states that “a robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm”. [Anyone watch the movie, "I-Robot," starring Will Smith? Pure Asimov!] Asimov's "three laws" are a bit of science-fiction firmament that have escaped into the wider consciousness, often taken to be a serious basis for robot governance. But robots of the classic sort, and bionic technologies that enhance or become part of humans, raise many thorny legal, ethical and regulatory questions. If an assistive exoskeleton is implicated in a death, who is at fault? If a brain-computer interface is used to communicate with someone in a vegetative state, are those messages legally binding? Can someone opt to replace their healthy limbs with robotic prostheses?
Comments
OJ, I continue to believe technology will be the place to invest even as one is replace by the next.
VF, somewhere between fast food and fast forward (many more jobs) is life as we know it. Those that step up the staircase of employment will look back fondly at the foundation these entry level jobs created. Remember someone was a paperboy before they became the editor of the paper they delivered.
Crash, you and I have grown up a bit here at Fundalarm and MFO. My offer for Oyster at Max's still stands...next time you're at your Fidelity office in CT.
maxrestaurantgroup.com/oyster/index.php
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2014/09/robot-jurisprudence
WHEN the autonomous cars in Isaac Asimov's 1953 short story “Sally” encourage a robotic bus to dole out some rough justice to an unscrupulous businessman, the reader is to believe that the bus has contravened Asimov's first law of robotics, which states that “a robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm”. [Anyone watch the movie, "I-Robot," starring Will Smith? Pure Asimov!]
Asimov's "three laws" are a bit of science-fiction firmament that have escaped into the wider consciousness, often taken to be a serious basis for robot governance. But robots of the classic sort, and bionic technologies that enhance or become part of humans, raise many thorny legal, ethical and regulatory questions. If an assistive exoskeleton is implicated in a death, who is at fault? If a brain-computer interface is used to communicate with someone in a vegetative state, are those messages legally binding? Can someone opt to replace their healthy limbs with robotic prostheses?
Asimov's "three laws of robotics" sparked imaginations about how robots could be governed. But they were merely a literary device; they can now, respectfully, be laid to rest as the basis for serious legal discussion. The truth is stranger, and more complex, than fiction.
http://www.robolaw.eu/RoboLaw_files/documents/robolaw_d6.2_guidelinesregulatingrobotics_20140922.pdf
Regards,
Ted