Re: [Vo]:Robots to replace writers.

[Daniel Rocha]

These think tanks more or less exposes the same type of thing. But, let me
show some good sources from "my side", these people more or less exposes
the same type of thing

https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/
https://critiqueofcrisistheory.wordpress.com/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCvdjsJtifsZoShjcAAHZpA/playlists
https://www.youtube.com/user/MaoistRebelNews2/playlists?shelf_id=0=1=dd


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Robots to replace writers.

[Adrian Ashfield]

 Daniel,


ps.  I came across this piece after my last post that covers soe of the points 
I made.
http://mailchi.mp/epi/news-from-the-economic-policy-institute-74f85odszg?e=803fbad814

Re: [Vo]:Robots to replace writers.

[Daniel Rocha]

Adrian, I don't know what you consider to be wealth. I don't get why you
talk about taxes. I don't get why you talk about businesses. Taxes has
nothing to do with socialism, it is something that belongs to capitalism,
or save for cooperatives at best. You are citing England You are talking
about private property. This is something abolished (with very small
exceptions). I am talking about USSR, specially under Stalin, North Korea,
Maoist China, Cuba Yugoslavia, socialists Albania, the countries of the
Warsaw pact.

2017-10-15 13:36 GMT-02:00 Adrian Ashfield :

> Daniel,
>
> Capitalism has a far better record for increasing a country's wealth than
> Socialism.  The problem with Socialism is that it reduces incentives to
> work. I lived in England when the top tax rate was 93% and on top of that
> there was a purchase tax of 33.3%.  What is the point of working harder and
> longer when you get to keep so little?  The government also nationalized
> major industries that prompt;y went downhill.  Many of us then emigrated.
> It was known as the brain drain.
>
> When I was young most businesses treated their employees better and there
> was a sense of loyalty in both directions.  Increased profits were shared
> to some extent.  T hat has all changed since the 1970s.
> Richard Thaler,who has just won the Nobel prize in economics, has
> corrected some of the flaws in economic theory, but the damage has already
> been done. My point was that it will be a different game with 30 - 50%
> unemployed.  In general it would be better for the individual to decide how
> to spend his money rather than have some socialist bureaucrat do it.  Hence
> UBI.
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Rocha 
> To: John Milstone 
> Sent: Sat, Oct 14, 2017 11:35 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Robots to replace writers.
>
> Adrian,
>
> It's a matter of perspective of to works for who and to whom. In my
> perspective, capitalism has been tried and never worked. Socialism (I
> reserve communism for something else, utopic) always worked better on
> average for most individuals, within my parameters. I didn't see it not
> working but rather being defeated by external force, in most places though(
> there is still North Korea and Cuba). The sheer lack of planning, leaving
> stuff for random market forces, will necessarily lead to ultimate
> destruction of capitalism, what comes next is anybody guess.
>
> Note, I didn't address the state of affairs as power, but of
> responsibility that a given system gives to individuals. I don't see greed
> as a thing or an issue at all. I don't see it greed arising from evolution,
> so I don't see it as human nature, it is lack of planning, lack of
> accountability, on ideological level. This is why I see socialism as more
> akin to human nature, but capitalism must be really destroyed, even at
> ideological level, similar to the idea of serfdom or slavery. Then, the
> idea of socialism will have to be destroyed in order to achieve communism.
>
> Robots and AI will always be under the command of some people, so, I don't
> see any hope in there. Machines will not achieve a transition to complete
> control out of nowhere, similar to sky net. I don't see technology as
> something that arises from a given economic system. It is rather applied
> scientific method to solve problems and that's it. So, the British taking
> technology here or there is not something good or bad, rather, it is its
> use that matters.
>
> I don't hope to convince anyone, I am showing a way out, in case anyone
> reads this someday. I won't typein capslock like "Che" does, because,
> ultimately, as my father says, if you don't learn by means of love, you
> will learn by pain (and no, I am not saying in the hands of communists,
> quite the opposite).
>



-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Robots to replace writers.

[Adrian Ashfield]

 Daniel,


Capitalism has a far better record for increasing a country's wealth than 
Socialism.  The problem with Socialism is that it reduces incentives to work. I 
lived in England when the top tax rate was 93% and on top of that there was a 
purchase tax of 33.3%.  What is the point of working harder and longer when you 
get to keep so little?  The government also nationalized major industries that 
prompt;y went downhill.  Many of us then emigrated.  It was known as the brain 
drain.


When I was young most businesses treated their employees better and there was a 
sense of loyalty in both directions.  Increased profits were shared to some 
extent.  T hat has all changed since the 1970s.
Richard Thaler,who has just won the Nobel prize in economics, has corrected 
some of the flaws in economic theory, but the damage has already been done. My 
point was that it will be a different game with 30 - 50% unemployed.  In 
general it would be better for the individual to decide how to spend his money 
rather than have some socialist bureaucrat do it.  Hence UBI.


 




-Original Message-
From: Daniel Rocha 
To: John Milstone 
Sent: Sat, Oct 14, 2017 11:35 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Robots to replace writers.




Adrian,


It's a matter of perspective of to works for who and to whom. In my 
perspective, capitalism has been tried and never worked. Socialism (I reserve 
communism for something else, utopic) always worked better on average for most 
individuals, within my parameters. I didn't see it not working but rather being 
defeated by external force, in most places though( there is still North Korea 
and Cuba). The sheer lack of planning, leaving stuff for random market forces, 
will necessarily lead to ultimate destruction of capitalism, what comes next is 
anybody guess. 

Note, I didn't address the state of affairs as power, but of responsibility 
that a given system gives to individuals. I don't see greed as a thing or an 
issue at all. I don't see it greed arising from evolution, so I don't see it as 
human nature, it is lack of planning, lack of accountability, on ideological 
level. This is why I see socialism as more akin to human nature, but capitalism 
must be really destroyed, even at ideological level, similar to the idea of 
serfdom or slavery. Then, the idea of socialism will have to be destroyed in 
order to achieve communism.

 Robots and AI will always be under the command of some people, so, I don't see 
any hope in there. Machines will not achieve a transition to complete control 
out of nowhere, similar to sky net. I don't see technology as something that 
arises from a given economic system. It is rather applied scientific method to 
solve problems and that's it. So, the British taking technology here or there 
is not something good or bad, rather, it is its use that matters.


I don't hope to convince anyone, I am showing a way out, in case anyone reads 
this someday. I won't typein capslock like "Che" does, because, ultimately, as 
my father says, if you don't learn by means of love, you will learn by pain 
(and no, I am not saying in the hands of communists, quite the opposite).

[Vo]:Article: This Overlooked Theory Could Be The Missing Piece That Explains How The EM Drive Works

[Bob Higgins]

In case you haven't found it yet, you can go to the web site of one of the
authors (Paulo Castro) and download a .pdf copy of this paper:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320330808_A_POSSIBLE_EXPLANATION_FOR_THE_EM_DRIVE_BASED_ON_A_PILOT_WAVE_THEORY

While the full article is on the site,  there is a blue button, "Download
full-text PDF".  If you press it, you get the article, not take to a
pay-wall.

Bob

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 12:32 AM, Russ George  wrote:

> Alas once again the world of vulture science has placed this seemingly
> interesting paper behind a paywall. We need a grand inquisitor to take on
> the world of science again but this time to apply the screws to those in
> science who put knowledge behind paywalls. The world cannot afford nor
> should it tolerate this sort of perverse capitalism. Science trolls
> greedily guarding the bridges to knowledge need to be eliminated.
>
>
>
> *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 8, 2017 8:23 AM
> *To:* vortex-l
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Article: This Overlooked Theory Could Be The Missing
> Piece That Explains How The EM Drive Works
>
>
>
> What the pilot wave theory applied to the EM drive does not explicitly say
> is that a coherent wave pattern acts like a large particle. The Em drive
> becomes a large particle. It goes to reason if the EM drive where made
> coherent then the EM drive would be very much more powerful because the
> coherent resonant pilot wave would coherently coupled with the EM drive
> making everything a single giant particle.  A superconductive EM drive
> would do that.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>
> This Overlooked Theory Could Be The Missing Piece That Explains How The EM
> Drive Works
>
> http://flip.it/R11OHO
>
>
>

[Vo]:An ideal implementation of self-driving vehicle - the robotic fireman

[JonesBeene]

Recent devastating wildfires in California – with negative economic impact (and 
death toll) about half of Hurricanes Harvey– brings to mind a near-term 
suggestion that could have been implemented already.

This would be the self-driving fire truck and/or the robotic water cannon. 

Actually even a small format like the size of an ATV is amenable to this 
implementation – bringing a few hundred gallons of fire retardant to a site 
ASAP without the need human supervision (and delay).

The main point to keep in mind in this suggestion is that satellites can spot a 
wildfire within seconds of its starting and any fire is exponentially easier to 
contain, the sooner first responders arrive at the scene. By having many robots 
spread over a large area, response time is further slashed.

Fire crews are of course optimized for quick response – but even so a 10-20 
minutes delay is inevitable  especially at night, and valuable time could be 
saved if a fleet of driverless water tankers were widely deployed in high risk 
areas. 

As soon as a satellite picks up a possible wildfire – within seconds, not 
minutes – a first response vehicle is headed to the coordinates of the active 
site and in many cases fire retardant can be sprayed before the area gets out 
of control.

I suspect that Google and Waymo (not Uber) are fully aware of this prime 
application already – but guess what - the Chinese are taking orders… If the US 
is lagging, let’s put a fire under their butt to get prototypes out in the 
field this year! since now is the time to get government involved and the fire 
season is far from over. 

Plus, the future of self-driving cars can derive PR benefits from an early 
successful implementation. (do not use the phrase “killer app”)

Here is the Chinese version – made primarily for crowd control, it is said – 
but I suppose that is the easiest way to get the basic idea approved by Congress

http://sc01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1rMU7KpctXpXXq6xXFXXXk/Firefighting-robot-with-water-cannon-monitor.jpg