Fun With Millennials!

[1maGoh]

A few decades to be honest, we already have the technology, we're working on making it cheaper and more efficient.



It's actually not as hard as you might think, it takes work but there are already countries that are expecting to be free from fossils fuels within a decade or so. Scotland is on target to run only on green energy by 2020 for example. There's also robots that can clean oceans, and we discovered a species of fungi that will eat plastic, so research could held reduce landfills. We can also have algae street lights, things like that. Not only do they look cool as crap, but they are cheaper and better for the environment.



Keep in mind a lot of that is media sensationalism. That's why it's better to listen to the actual scientists, and read the science websites who are citing the actual journals. Or find real scientists and ask them, I'm always happy to try and explain sciences to the best of my ability. Granted, my focus is astrophysics, but I'm happy to try.



Not always, as long as the tests are repeatable, that's what science is about. We're always learning and trying to improve our understanding of the universe. Now that doesn't mean that data can't be fudged and mistakes made, but typically that happens with lesser research, as it's not as likely to be reviewed. When it comes to high profile stuff it's extremely rare, and with such a large consensus for things like climate change, there would be a huge conspiracy with millions of people around the world in on it for it to be false. It's occam's razor here, the simplest answer, that the data is true, is likely the right one, but the others rely on tons of very unlikely and wild things to all happen perfectly.



It's more damaging to a career to be forced to retract something they've published. For example, the guy who published the bogus article saying that vaccines cause autism lost his medical license and his career ended. That's why scientists who were paid by climate change denier groups (and some funded by the Koch brothers) came to the same conclusion, that it's real, man is making it far worse, and it's very dangerous. If anyone had reason to go against the grain it was them, but they didn't.



That "documentary" was made by creationists groups to try and suggest that intelligent design was legitimate science. Now I'm not going to get into that debate, because this isn't the place (that is better served for PMs) but that's why those students weren't able to complete their research. It'd be like me trying to earn my PhD by writing a thesis that the sun is made from ice cream. Or that the Earth is flat. The makers of it didn't give any advanced screenings before release because they knew it would be ripped to shreds, and upon release it was. You need hard, real data in research.



It would depend heavily on what was being researched. You can tweak experiments to try and get the results you want, that's what you're supposed to do really. Try different ways to prove your hypothesis. Sometimes there can be other variables that help out. That's not dishonest at all, as long as the results follow what the experiment did and it was done correctly.

A good example of bad research is from the show The Big Bang Theory. In one episode they go to the North Pole to run tests, and one of the characters is annoying, so they use a microwave to get false data, which ends up working for the experiment. That's bad, because the results don't reflect the real data at all (and the character has to retract his findings). That data wouldn't be repeatable though, and it would have been found out.

Data is made available (even to non-scientists) so tests can be ran. It's okay to tweak an experiment to try and get the results you want (for example, when trying to figure out what Dark Matter is, we tweak things a lot to see if we can get a different result. How that works is, typically a theoretical physicist will say "hey, I think this particle may be the answer." And other scientists will try and discover it. For Dark Matter, we think Axion may be the answer, however it has a mass of 10^−5 to 10^−3eV/c2, so it's not easy to detect. We tweak things trying to find that particle. And we don't even know if that particle, if it exists, would actually be a component of Dark Matter. There's a lot of different things that will go into finding these things. Same with the Higgs Boson, we found the particle, now we're trying to see if it disintegrates into Dark Matter, which requires a lot of different tests.

As soon as we get a positive result though, everyone is going to want to repeat those tests, so you couldn't fudge those numbers if you wanted to. Most "known" (popular) science is the same.



Yes and no. It helps to have positive results, but it can be a career ender to have false results. And if it comes out that you intentionally falsified said data, your career is definitely over. So it's better to be correct. There's always a push for donors for quick results (after all, they want to know what their money is going towards) which is why independent government funded research is very important, typically there's less (or supposed to be) less pressure for quick results. It's one of the reasons why our European scientists are pulling ahead of us.

If you have any questions about how research is typically done, I'm happy to help shed the light. I've given reports to both the House and Senate science committees (which made me want to bang my head against the wall to be honest), and I've had experiments and models be a bust. It happens, part of science.

I knew that Expelled was about creation science, but it still doesn't make sense to fire someone for a personal belief unrelated to their actual job performance. I was under the impression that they weren't doing creation research on company time (or at all), so to speak. One of the miniscule amount of things I've heard from the movie was that a math professor was fired for putting up some kind of math problem that would lead to something creation-y. At first it was on his school page, they asked him to take it down. When he did and he put it up on a personal site, they fired him. Not sure about the truth, but it certainly looks bad for anyone interested in justice and fairness. I can't judge though. I'm not privy to that inside info. And I didn't see the movie.

For tweaking experiments, I know that you have to repeat them alter the variables, but at what point do you say "I might just be wrong"?

I mean it seems, from a layman's perspective that scientists look at how they think things should be, then test until they confirm their own hypothesis.

When was the last time a scientist was wrong? As in, a long held theory of how it should work was disproven?

Lastly, all this clean energy, glass powered cars, and all renewable energy shenanigans won't happen because there's too much money tied up in the current way of operating. The people in power and with the money won't let anything get to market without finding a way to make it cost us more than what we're currently paying. Utopia is just that: no place.

 

[Mackeyser]

I struggle to believe that the timeline will be that fast for everything because all this automation is going to be expensive. It will be especially expensive when it becomes trendy. And when that happens, automation will be the new thing and it will get cheap enough for regular businesses to engage in, leading to smaller business having it as well.

Mostly I just can't see Domino's replacing every driver with a wicked expensive self driving car in the next 5 years. And if they do, not having service for disabled people will either end that really quick, or create a very competitive market for professional driver's/delivery people.

Self driving cars won't self repair and they won't self tow when they break down. All these darn robots will need network techs and repair techs and other jobs that will open up. I'd also be willing to bet that with all those super rich people about to happen, personal servants will make a huge comeback and the arts will take off. But that's a guess. I don't do analytics professionally so I probably ought to defer to your research.

I just have a hard time believing in a new crisis after all the ones that have come before and not panned out. Not from you, but other people predicting the future.

Well, whenever I talk econ, I do my own research.

As for the expense, let's talk ROI.

The self-driving module that's been tested for over a year in existing diesel rigs costs LESS than the annual salary of a driver. Typical business justification for improvements unless they fundamentally change the business is a 3 year ROI. Well, when the system costs less than a single year's salary (not to mention, the system can't get sick or injured or have a family emergency), the ROI is essentially met the first year. The maintenance costs in the second year dwarf a driver's salary. Moreover, the savings from insurance further accelerate the ROI of the automation.

As well, Volvo and Tesla are already taking orders and ramping up to fleet levels to sell electric big rigs with fully autonomous driving capability as soon as 2019.

Dominos is already in development (with Google, I think) and are ALREADY deploying autonomous driving cars to deliver pizzas in test markets. So, that's already in beta and cars are already on the road. There will be some franchises that will keep human drivers like in NYC or other locations where automation doesn't make sense, but they will be the exception. As for disabled people, some businesses will probably grow to fill that niche that's abandoned by automation. I mean if you can save 50%, but you lose 10% of your customers (presuming the customers you're losing don't provide a disproportionate income to your business), then it's a no-brainer.

Self-driving cars won't self-repair. That wouldn't be efficient. But the automation isn't that hard. Most cars these days are built using automation and a few people to man the robots because up until now the people were cheaper, but that day is rapidly coming to an end. We already have the software widely deployed to do things like parallel park. The new autonomous cars will likely have at some point a "standardized tow platform" so that an autonomous tow vehicle can pick up the malfunctioning car and take it to a depot.

And what I predicted is already starting... it's already a hugely growing business in Europe. Nascent, but growing. Everyone from Tesla to Hertz is putting SERIOUS money into these "fleet subscription models". And that means a lot of people don't buy cars in the traditional ownership sense. They buy "subscriptions" that give them access. They use an app for when they need it and they can have an a la carte option or a commuting option. It won't be long before the cost of car ownership is simply untenable (largely as a result of insurance among other factors) or ownership won't be an option at all. There is already speculation in the building industry that the garage may go the way of the floppy drive in many configurations. Without the need for personal conveyance storage, we will see radical departures from the typical "subdivision" as we know it and city planners are already looking at how these changes will affect their design process. If only politicians started planning to forego parking/traffic enforcement revenues...

What's funny is that so many of the pieces are already in place. It's like the last few pieces are ready to be put in place and the picture will be complete.

I know it's hard to believe because I had the same sort of incredulity when I first saw it.

But we really have hundreds of industries that are racing to automate and eliminate wages and beyond that, create synergies with other companies that are also automating.

As someone who invented an automated solution, I can see where this inevitably leads.

Principle demands return. Wages are the enemy of profit. So, outside of pure speculation, automated solutions provide the stability businesses require. We couldn't have JIT production or the current safety level of cars without it.

Oh, and one last thing. The Airbus A380 jumbo jet can do everything...takeoff, fly and land fully automated (so can the Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner). As it exists, these sky luxury liners only employ an active pilot for 3 minutes on takeoff and about that on landing. Pretty expensive salaries for being a computer babysitter that does 6 minutes of work on a 15 hour flight... It won't be long before we no longer have pilots, military or civilian. That's happening. Now. Most baggage routing is automated already.

I could do this for dozens of industries now and more coming online or further automated every day.

It's not IF it's coming, but how we adjust to it. And yes, the pace will be shocking.

20 years ago, you couldn't use your CC on the internet (I owned my own internet consulting business then, so I'm intimately familiar with what was possible, then). This year, Amazon was the biggest retailer amassing over HALF of all online sales in the US which is still growing at a staggering rate. Think of it...e-commerce is still only 15.8% of all retail sales so there is still fantastic growth potential as more retailers employ their "Amazon strategy". Look up the web series "Winners and Losers" by a business prof at NYU's biz school. It's super funny and he's very informative about the state of business in the US and globally.

Sorry, I go on, but I'm passionate about learning, economics, applied engineering and applied maths and all this stuff coalesces into my sweet spot.

So, let's turn to Terminator 2: Judgment Day for hope (not often a person says that...LOL)

"The future's not set. There's no fate but what we make for ourselves."

Skynet (or the corporate equivalent) is bound to happen. We'll still have to make choices that determine our fate.

Oh..and GO RAMS!!!

 

[1maGoh]

A few decades to be honest, we already have the technology, we're working on making it cheaper and more efficient.



It's actually not as hard as you might think, it takes work but there are already countries that are expecting to be free from fossils fuels within a decade or so. Scotland is on target to run only on green energy by 2020 for example. There's also robots that can clean oceans, and we discovered a species of fungi that will eat plastic, so research could held reduce landfills. We can also have algae street lights, things like that. Not only do they look cool as crap, but they are cheaper and better for the environment.



Keep in mind a lot of that is media sensationalism. That's why it's better to listen to the actual scientists, and read the science websites who are citing the actual journals. Or find real scientists and ask them, I'm always happy to try and explain sciences to the best of my ability. Granted, my focus is astrophysics, but I'm happy to try.



Not always, as long as the tests are repeatable, that's what science is about. We're always learning and trying to improve our understanding of the universe. Now that doesn't mean that data can't be fudged and mistakes made, but typically that happens with lesser research, as it's not as likely to be reviewed. When it comes to high profile stuff it's extremely rare, and with such a large consensus for things like climate change, there would be a huge conspiracy with millions of people around the world in on it for it to be false. It's occam's razor here, the simplest answer, that the data is true, is likely the right one, but the others rely on tons of very unlikely and wild things to all happen perfectly.



It's more damaging to a career to be forced to retract something they've published. For example, the guy who published the bogus article saying that vaccines cause autism lost his medical license and his career ended. That's why scientists who were paid by climate change denier groups (and some funded by the Koch brothers) came to the same conclusion, that it's real, man is making it far worse, and it's very dangerous. If anyone had reason to go against the grain it was them, but they didn't.



That "documentary" was made by creationists groups to try and suggest that intelligent design was legitimate science. Now I'm not going to get into that debate, because this isn't the place (that is better served for PMs) but that's why those students weren't able to complete their research. It'd be like me trying to earn my PhD by writing a thesis that the sun is made from ice cream. Or that the Earth is flat. The makers of it didn't give any advanced screenings before release because they knew it would be ripped to shreds, and upon release it was. You need hard, real data in research.



It would depend heavily on what was being researched. You can tweak experiments to try and get the results you want, that's what you're supposed to do really. Try different ways to prove your hypothesis. Sometimes there can be other variables that help out. That's not dishonest at all, as long as the results follow what the experiment did and it was done correctly.

A good example of bad research is from the show The Big Bang Theory. In one episode they go to the North Pole to run tests, and one of the characters is annoying, so they use a microwave to get false data, which ends up working for the experiment. That's bad, because the results don't reflect the real data at all (and the character has to retract his findings). That data wouldn't be repeatable though, and it would have been found out.

Data is made available (even to non-scientists) so tests can be ran. It's okay to tweak an experiment to try and get the results you want (for example, when trying to figure out what Dark Matter is, we tweak things a lot to see if we can get a different result. How that works is, typically a theoretical physicist will say "hey, I think this particle may be the answer." And other scientists will try and discover it. For Dark Matter, we think Axion may be the answer, however it has a mass of 10^−5 to 10^−3eV/c2, so it's not easy to detect. We tweak things trying to find that particle. And we don't even know if that particle, if it exists, would actually be a component of Dark Matter. There's a lot of different things that will go into finding these things. Same with the Higgs Boson, we found the particle, now we're trying to see if it disintegrates into Dark Matter, which requires a lot of different tests.

As soon as we get a positive result though, everyone is going to want to repeat those tests, so you couldn't fudge those numbers if you wanted to. Most "known" (popular) science is the same.



Yes and no. It helps to have positive results, but it can be a career ender to have false results. And if it comes out that you intentionally falsified said data, your career is definitely over. So it's better to be correct. There's always a push for donors for quick results (after all, they want to know what their money is going towards) which is why independent government funded research is very important, typically there's less (or supposed to be) less pressure for quick results. It's one of the reasons why our European scientists are pulling ahead of us.

If you have any questions about how research is typically done, I'm happy to help shed the light. I've given reports to both the House and Senate science committees (which made me want to bang my head against the wall to be honest), and I've had experiments and models be a bust. It happens, part of science.

And to be clear, if you say the planet is screwed in twenty years, I believe you. Please find me a new one. I'll hook up your network for free when we get there.

 

[VegasRam]

Well like I said before, fields change. When old work styles change, humans have adapted, and new types of work emerges. That's where us millennials will come in, and we'll be fine.

Yes you will. William Shakespeare could not only have written, but addressed every point in this entire thread.
The divide, demographical, generational and ideological, all pretty much based on age and lifestyle differences, has been going on for centuries, and will continue to do so well into the next millineum. No pun intended.
Knowledge (and exuberance), practicality (and expectations), wisdom (and acceptance).

Rinse and repeat.

 

[Farr Be It]

First, I heard (but haven't seen so take it with a grain of salt) about the documentary Expelled by Ben Stein. It's about people getting kicked out of research positions and schools for engaging in research that contradicted popular opinion, even if it was on their own time, or having an open different from the intended conclusion of the research. If there was data that refuted popular scientific opinion, I don't think we'd hear about it.

Great Movie. Academia and Government have bullied thousands of professors into silence and ruined careers when they don't agree with the doomsday prophesies.

I greatly respect your service to our country @bluecoconuts and think you are a sharp guy. But I disagree with a lot of your conclusions. I, a non-scientist, am capable of reading data, and have researched quite a bit.

There are thousands in your profession that disagree that humans are causing adverse affects to our climate. And the data supports their views. I am sure if I start listing things, proving "the crisis formerly known as Global Warming" is not a crisis at all, you will come back with other data. I will be called a flat-earther, etc. etc.

It is ironic that the generation that laments the lack of good jobs, supports global schemes that do nothing to change the temperature of the earth by one-one-hundredth of a degree over the course of a hundred years, but kill off thousands of jobs, ruin companies and real peoples lives TODAY, all based on bad science, and a desire to bring down America. Yeah, I said it. I don't think You do, I think you have great intentions, and can do great things. That is why I would love to see your energies best directed.

China, and India are BUILDING UP their economies, and are exempt from these moronic climate deals for the foreseeable future. Yet they have 35.8% of the worlds population combined, compared to the U.S. 4.3%! Yet the U.S. is accused of being the worst polluter, rather than properly being extolled as the largest PRODUCER of goods and needed products and technology world wide. You kick out a bit of pollution when you are kicking ass, and feeding the world.

The United States should be lauded for implementing clean air and water standards, while in China, people had to wear masks during the Beijing Olympics. Why are we afraid of these people?

• The 97% "Consensus" lie. Turns out .3% of the peer reviewed data supported anthropological global warming in that study. Ironically, John "Cook" was the author of that. Really cooked the books there. I have heard that lie spouted 1000 nauseating times.
• The East Anglia Email scandal, in which scientists were caught admitted that the temperature data is not cooperating, so they concocted schemes to falsify the data. The emails were hacked. Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing.
• The warming on other planets, indicating sun flare activity plays a great part in temperature variation. (By the way, it is a pipe-dream to believe that Venus, or any other planet, is viable for life to exist, other than Earth. The needed balance in our atmosphere of Nitrogen 78% Oxygen 21% Argon .9% and Carbon dioxide .03%!! Not to mention water vapor is the overwhelming source of greenhouse gas in the environment. But it is easier to focus on control and destruction of an economy through CO2 emissions.
• There is a great deal of evidence that CO2 levels actually do not have a causal affect on temperature but follow temperature increases.
• Our CO2 levels were actually dangerously low, (250ppm) and have thankfully risen to much better concentrations (400ppm) in our atmosphere. CO2 is freaking plant food people!! Yet, laughably it is treated as though it is a poison. (uhhh, that would be carbon MONoxide perhaps, alarmists are thinking of?) In greenhouses that grow plants, they crank CO2 levels up way over 1000. Delicious stuff.
• etc. etc. So much more. I realize there are "answers" to all of these facts, and I have read both sides with an open mind. I encourage others to do so, as well. More information is good.
• Incidentally, while our previous President bragged about killing the coal industry, (Thanks for our skyrocketing energy costs, Barry!) many don't realize that while the Billion dollar welfare queen Elon Musk cranks out electric cars, most electric energy by far requires coal. You can't have it both ways. I want to make wise energy choices too. I care about my kids and grand kids. That is why we need to embrace all of our resources God blessed us with. INCLUDING coal, and natural gas, solar, and nuclear energy. If we figure out a way to have windmills run Al Gores 5 air conditioning units, that too!

Sorry. But I too, have frustrations on this issue. I never want to be at odds with any of my Ram brothers, but there has been one side presented here. There is another side to this issue. Yes, a side that deserves respect, and has care for our planet, and our future, too.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I knew that Expelled was about creation science, but it still doesn't make sense to fire someone for a personal belief unrelated to their actual job performance. I was under the impression that they weren't doing creation research on company time (or at all), so to speak. One of the miniscule amount of things I've heard from the movie was that a math professor was fired for putting up some kind of math problem that would lead to something creation-y. At first it was on his school page, they asked him to take it down. When he did and he put it up on a personal site, they fired him. Not sure about the truth, but it certainly looks bad for anyone interested in justice and fairness. I can't judge though. I'm not privy to that inside info. And I didn't see the movie.

I haven't seen the movie either, but I do know that they interview some college professors (not scientists though) who did, and still do hold jobs, despite being known pushers of intelligent design. Most schools won't fire you for that, however, if you're a scientist pushing that and you have no data to support it, then you're probably not going to have a job very long because you're not doing your job correctly. I do know that someone in the film claimed he was wrongly targeted for it, but the truth is he was fired, because he approved an unscientific paper that didn't get properly reviewed claiming that intelligent design was real science, despite having no evidence in it to support that, and no evidence to go against evolution. That's a big science fail.

For tweaking experiments, I know that you have to repeat them alter the variables, but at what point do you say "I might just be wrong"?

When you run out of ideas, funding, or someone orders you to stop really. It all depends on how long you want and can go. If you have the funding and desire you can go as long as you want. Doesn't mean you'll ever find anything, I know scientists who have dedicated their entire life's work to figuring out Dark Matter and they haven't figured it out yet. Scienxe is usually about small steps, a relay race.

I mean it seems, from a layman's perspective that scientists look at how they think things should be, then test until they confirm their own hypothesis.

Yes and no. Typically there's something that says "X" is out there, we need to find it. So a theoretical physicist will crunch numbers/math/etc. Look at data, and say "well we should have a puzzle piece here" and then others, usually who do applied physics, do the experiments and tests to try and prove/disprove the theory.

For example, Einstein long ago talked about gravitational waves. Well recently we were able to detect them. The idea was out there for decades, and we finally were able to figure it out. Same with Axions and Dark Matter.

The math says it should be there, now we need to find it. That is incredibly difficult though.

When was the last time a scientist was wrong? As in, a long held theory of how it should work was disproven?

It happens quite a bit (famously the heliocentric model of the universe vs geocentric model)... Most examples are from the past, as physics has become much more specialized. For example I study astrophysics and astropartical physics, which is pretty narrow, with my research mostly focusing on Dark Matter and finding habitable planets. My academic advisor focused on Black Holes and Quasars. The result of this specialization means that wrong theories are often disproven very quickly and thus don't have a chance to become widely accepted.

Aether and the Michaelson-Morley is a pretty well known "Yeah, that idea is wrong" example. The idea was that aether was the medium that light traveled through, and was widely accepted, until proven wrong in the late 1800's.

I myself have had experiments amount to nothing as well. It happens to all scientists.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I greatly respect your service to our country @bluecoconuts and think you are a sharp guy. But I disagree with a lot of your conclusions. I, a non-scientist, am capable of reading data, and have researched quite a bit.

My service to this country doesn't mean anything in this debate, there's no need man.

And I'm sorry, but that's just not the case, and there is overwhelming scientific consensus on it (over 95%). You obviously feel very strongly, as do I, as I've personally worked with the data, and my PhD I feel qualifies me to speak a little on the subject, although I still wouldn't claim to be an expert. I keep politics and science separate the best I can, because when you want something to be true to fit into political leanings, then you're likely to allow biases get in the way. It's why I don't study things like sociology and gun violence, as a gun owner, and an avid shooter I know I would be biased on the subject.

So I'll just simply walk away from the rest of these discussions, as I don't want to start down that path.

Enjoy the rest of your discussion, everyone!

 

[Farr Be It]

My service to this country doesn't mean anything in this debate, there's no need man.

Not in this debate. But I reserve the right to acknowledge your service. I served in peace time, and may not have had the balls to do what you had to do. I respect that, and wish for your life to be blessed.

And I'm sorry, but that's just not the case, and there is overwhelming scientific consensus on it (over 95%) obviously feel very strongly, as do I, as I've personally worked with the data, and my PhD I feel qualifies me to speak a little on the subject,

I can't believe you used that consensus thing! the 95 or 97%. It was manipulation of data. (Actually .3% AGW-Cook paper)

I believe another myth is that science is incompatible with belief in Intelligent Design. I believe science proves the Creation world view, and that science is actually incompatible with the religious faith called Evolution. Poor Darwin thought that the cell was the most basic structure, as complicated as a ping pong ball. The technology was not yet available to see the inner workings of the cell. DNA, and all the perfectly designed parts that statistically could never have happen, but for Intelligent Design.

It is all about your presuppositions.

If you presuppose we went from goo to you, via the zoo, then it will affect your findings and research. (I realize this is not your field of study) If you believe in the Big Bang, you will not consider Creation model of the planets, and it will affect your studies.


Again. I get it that you do this for a living. I do. And you know many things that I do not know. That does not make the things I believe untrue.

I am always researching more to know the facts, and sometimes change when I discover new information. That is all that matters. The facts.

Thanks for the feedback @bluecoconuts . I admire you, and the things you are doing with your life. Cheers.

 

[Mackeyser]

My service to this country doesn't mean anything in this debate, there's no need man.

And I'm sorry, but that's just not the case, and there is overwhelming scientific consensus on it (over 95%). You obviously feel very strongly, as do I, as I've personally worked with the data, and my PhD I feel qualifies me to speak a little on the subject, although I still wouldn't claim to be an expert. I keep politics and science separate the best I can, because when you want something to be true to fit into political leanings, then you're likely to allow biases get in the way. It's why I don't study things like sociology and gun violence, as a gun owner, and an avid shooter I know I would be biased on the subject.

So I'll just simply walk away from the rest of these discussions, as I don't want to start down that path.

Enjoy the rest of your discussion, everyone!

Dr Bluecoconuts?

Has a ring to it...

 

[jrry32]

Most lawyer functions? Gone.

I doubt that. The protectionism in this profession is both a good and bad thing. Automation will certainly hurt the young lawyers who come after me, but the job isn't one that can be replaced. Unfortunately, a lot of the stuff that junior associates do at the large law firms (i.e., where most of the top-paying entry-level jobs are) could be automated. That might be problematic.

Well, sure. But I'm also talking about the way Universities are catering to the "apparent need for" social reform more than ever. Which, subsequently, allows more and more socially-driven malcontents to ignore the importance of a quality education in favor of becoming the saviors of humanity.

I went to school with some "savior of humanity" types. Those people have actually done pretty well for themselves. They have jobs and are pursuing passions while trying to make a positive difference. The people who are total wastes are the entitled kids of wealthy parents who valued partying and having a good time over everything else.

 

[jrry32]

That's mostly just a little joke from the "I learned it from watching you!" PSA's.. I actually hate a lot of the laziness and general "gimme gimme gimme" of my generation. My brother is a prime example of that and it drives me nuts, but that's for another thread!

My problem is that people pretend that's generational. It's not. It's a problem for every generation. For whatever reason, the older generation always has problems with the younger generation.

Not in this debate. But I reserve the right to acknowledge your service. I served in peace time, and may not have had the balls to do what you had to do. I respect that, and wish for your life to be blessed.


I can't believe you used that consensus thing! the 95 or 97%. It was manipulation of data. (Actually .3% AGW-Cook paper)

I believe another myth is that science is incompatible with belief in Intelligent Design. I believe science proves the Creation world view, and that science is actually incompatible with the religious faith called Evolution. Poor Darwin thought that the cell was the most basic structure, as complicated as a ping pong ball. The technology was not yet available to see the inner workings of the cell. DNA, and all the perfectly designed parts that statistically could never have happen, but for Intelligent Design.

It is all about your presuppositions.

If you presuppose we went from goo to you, via the zoo, then it will affect your findings and research. (I realize this is not your field of study) If you believe in the Big Bang, you will not consider Creation model of the planets, and it will affect your studies.


Again. I get it that you do this for a living. I do. And you know many things that I do not know. That does not make the things I believe untrue.

I am always researching more to know the facts, and sometimes change when I discover new information. That is all that matters. The facts.

Thanks for the feedback @bluecoconuts . I admire you, and the things you are doing with your life. Cheers.

Respectfully, Farr Be It, this comes off to me as a lot like the non-lawyers who are convinced that they know the law better than lawyers and judges. All too often, I see them basing that on their "common sense." I respect the fact that you do research (that's more than most can say), and I agree with Coconuts that this sort of discussion would inevitably touch upon subjects that are off limits, so I think I just better stop here.

 

[Mackeyser]

I doubt that. The protectionism in this profession is both a good and bad thing. Automation will certainly hurt the young lawyers who come after me, but the job isn't one that can be replaced. Unfortunately, a lot of the stuff that junior associates do at the large law firms (i.e., where most of the top-paying entry-level jobs are) could be automated. That might be problematic.



I went to school with some "savior of humanity" types. Those people have actually done pretty well for themselves. They have jobs and are pursuing passions while trying to make a positive difference. The people who are total wastes are the entitled kids of wealthy parents who valued partying and having a good time over everything else.

Well, my mom was the COO of a legal outplacement firm that specialized in document review. They employed HUNDREDS of lawyers to do that grunt work and you can rest assured that the field will be automated and sooner than people expect. And they were only a small company.

As well, things like probate, wills, LLCs and basic lawyer functions are already being automated on the web by companies like Legal Zoom.

I don't think litigation will go away, soon, but bodily injury attorneys in the coming age of automated transport? Yeah, that field's gonna dry up like corset makers.

I'm not saying everything will dry up all of a sudden. But in many ways, it will feel like all of a sudden because so much change will be happening. It'll be like watching a store close every day. The first week, maybe not too many people notice, but after a month? And if the pace starts to accelerate? Two a day...three? That's beyond noticing leaning heavily toward panic-inducing.

 

[bubbaramfan]

One of my favorite pastimes is to sit across the street from the local High School and wait for school to get out, then watch the students. As they make their way to the corner light and wait to cross the street they are all busy on their gizmo's texting or whatever it is so important to do than watching to see if a car is coming.
I get a kick out of watching them step off the curb falling flat on their face because they weren't paying attention, or running into a lightpost.
When I was in high school and I saw someone do that, we would laugh our ass of and tease the shyt out of them for weeks. But not these kids. they just look at the dumbass and say to themselves, " I've done that myself"

 

[fearsomefour]

I went to school with some "savior of humanity" types. Those people have actually done pretty well for themselves. They have jobs and are pursuing passions while trying to make a positive difference. The people who are total wastes are the entitled kids of wealthy parents who valued partying and having a good time over everything else.[/QUOTE]
Depends on personal experience I guess.
The bleeding hearts and "savior of humanity" types I grew up around or went to school with are largely miserable. Mostly because, and this is inevitable, they are hypocrites.
I made a shirt a couple of years ago when the hipsters were rolling through town on the way to Burning Man that said "Hippies are mean"
Because selfish pricks usually stay selfish pricks.
I think most people who are "do gooders" are full of it and full of themselves. Looking to sauve some emotional or psychological shortcomings they have. That's just my experience.
Truth is, people who really do good and try to make things better for themselves and those around them come is all shapes, ages, political viewpoints and every other subcategory you can think of.
When people get into handwringing mode about climate change or "the end of the world" I just don't get that. If weather cycles decide to put us into another ice age with ice shields down to north Texas that are 100 feet thick, like in the past, nothing we can do. If temps are gonna rise (this would mean the end of most drought....find the positive) and the atmosphere change to the point the planet is uninhabitable and the best option is to rocket off to some other planet (safe to assume with a less than ideal atmosphere).....well, that is all fantasy. So if we are that point it won't be changed. If it is the end, good. So be it. Don't care. Broadcast as much as you can in fabulous 4K HD and pass the popcorn.

 

[Farr Be It]

Respectfully, Farr Be It, this comes off to me as a lot like the non-lawyers who are convinced that they know the law better than lawyers and judges.

Thanks Jerry but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Seriously, though. I get it. I know when I am way over my skis on these issues sometimes. But one of the biggest mistakes we can make is the “appeal to authority” when it comes to important truths. I respect all you guys. Lawyers, Scientist and Economists. Oh my.

Well, my mom was the COO of a legal outplacement firm that specialized in document review. They employed HUNDREDS of lawyers to do that grunt work and you can rest assured that the field will be automated and sooner than people expect. And they were only a small company.

My buddy ran a firm like that in the Bay Area. (He was just bought out) and I believe they already were using technology for much of the research.

 

[Farr Be It]

As well, Volvo and Tesla are already taking orders and ramping up to fleet levels to sell electric big rigs with fully autonomous driving capability as soon as 2019.

Of course Musks billions in tax payer subsidies have been factored into ROI, right Mack?

I kind of don’t get the fascination with electric vehicles. I’m fine with research into better ways, but electric just offers trade offs to fossil fuels. Other problems. That is a large demand for batteries. I don’t think the trade off is such a no brainer.

Also, the picture you envision for automation truly is scary for humanity. I know you are just the messenger, and don’t support it. I would love to hear more of your solutions.

The automation is presented as such an “inevitability” but it gets into issues of freedom and liberty. National and personal sovereignty.

It is not just a case like the invention of electricity, or the automobile where the wheels of progress are for the common good and must not be stopped.

I’m sure a great deal of this is at the root of the push for global currency, global governance and population reduction. Evil all. The United States, in its current constitutional form, is not quaint, or antiquated. It is, I believe, the sole entity that keeps our world livable and at peace.

 

[jrry32]

Well, my mom was the COO of a legal outplacement firm that specialized in document review. They employed HUNDREDS of lawyers to do that grunt work and you can rest assured that the field will be automated and sooner than people expect. And they were only a small company.

As well, things like probate, wills, LLCs and basic lawyer functions are already being automated on the web by companies like Legal Zoom.

I don't think litigation will go away, soon, but bodily injury attorneys in the coming age of automated transport? Yeah, that field's gonna dry up like corset makers.

I'm not saying everything will dry up all of a sudden. But in many ways, it will feel like all of a sudden because so much change will be happening. It'll be like watching a store close every day. The first week, maybe not too many people notice, but after a month? And if the pace starts to accelerate? Two a day...three? That's beyond noticing leaning heavily toward panic-inducing.

Doc review is going to be automated. It's already trending that direction. That's one of the things I was referring to with junior associates at large law firms.

As for business entity and estates and trusts documents, the easy ones can go that direction, but those really aren't the documents that lawyers were making bank on already. A lot of those people probably wouldn't have gone to a lawyer in the first place. You'll still need a lawyer for the difficult ones.

And the personal injury attorneys won't go anywhere. I highly doubt that automated transport will be 100% safe. There will be malfunctions or errors.

 

[fearsomefour]

Of course Musks billions in tax payer subsidies have been factored into ROI, right Mack?

I kind of don’t get the fascination with electric vehicles. I’m fine with research into better ways, but electric just offers trade offs to fossil fuels. Other problems. That is a large demand for batteries. I don’t think the trade off is such a no brainer.

Also, the picture you envision for automation truly is scary for humanity. I know you are just the messenger, and don’t support it. I would love to hear more of your solutions.

The automation is presented as such an “inevitability” but it gets into issues of freedom and liberty. National and personal sovereignty.

It is not just a case like the invention of electricity, or the automobile where the wheels of progress are for the common good and must not be stopped.

I’m sure a great deal of this is at the root of the push for global currency, global governance and population reduction. Evil all. The United States, in its current constitutional form, is not quaint, or antiquated. It is, I believe, the sole entity that keeps our world livable and at peace.

The Tesla's are freaking sweet. A super impressive machine.
The Gigafactory that was build near where I live was also given a ton of help from the state. Good business I guess.

 

[Mackeyser]

Doc review is going to be automated. It's already trending that direction. That's one of the things I was referring to with junior associates at large law firms.

As for business entity and estates and trusts documents, the easy ones can go that direction, but those really aren't the documents that lawyers were making bank on already. A lot of those people probably wouldn't have gone to a lawyer in the first place. You'll still need a lawyer for the difficult ones.

And the personal injury attorneys won't go anywhere. I highly doubt that automated transport will be 100% safe. There will be malfunctions or errors.

True, but let's put this in perspective. The automated cars that do Google street maps have gone maybe billions of miles at this point. And? There's been all of FOUR crashes and in every case, it was a person hitting the Google car. Every. Case.

There will still be bodily injury attorneys, but the incidents of someone being able to sue because of malfunction will be exceedingly rare. MOST personal injury attorneys simply won't be in the field anymore.

 

[jrry32]

True, but let's put this in perspective. The automated cars that do Google street maps have gone maybe billions of miles at this point. And? There's been all of FOUR crashes and in every case, it was a person hitting the Google car. Every. Case.

There will still be bodily injury attorneys, but the incidents of someone being able to sue because of malfunction will be exceedingly rare. MOST personal injury attorneys simply won't be in the field anymore.

We'll see.