|
|
That's absurd.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Yes they should! At least mine 
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
An approach I have to think about. I hope my tax office does not read my comment here 
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I think that is an issue want must be discussed 
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
If you want fewer "robots" and more "machines" then, yes.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I actually checked the date this was published, just in case....
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: I actually checked the date this was published, just in case.
It wasn't April 1 of any year? It should be.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: "Within the space of a few decades [artificial intelligence] could surpass human intellectual capacity in a manner which, if not prepared for, could pose a challenge to humanity's capacity to control its own creation and ... the survival of the species,
 This guy has watched way too many movies. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
But what if. What if we create AI that surpasses our own intellectual capacity.
Good thing we prepared all those laws, they will definitely prevent the AI from taking over the world..
We'll just tax our way to victory.
|
|
|
|
|
That would have to assume they get paid to work ... and what's the point in robots if we pay them? lol
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: The proposal suggests that robots should have to register with authorities, and says laws should be written to hold machines liable for damage they cause, such as loss of jobs.
If these clowns were around 100 years ago, they would have held cars liable for the loss of jobs among horsewhip manufacturers. (They're called automobiles, aren't they?)
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Just another case of stupid headlines. What this really is about is that people replacing humans with robots should pay taxes as if they were paid, taxable human workers.
The notion isn't so outlandish if you think about it: the more jobs get replaced by robot workers, the less human workers remain to pay taxes, and the more humans become dependend on the social network, i. e. taxes.
Then again, the same is true, more or less, with pretty much any machine. Such a legislation would only be fair if it somehow rated the amount of human work that a particular machine or robot performs, and relate it to the expected lowered amount of income tax. The question is, if it is at all possible to fairly estimate that, since most workers will simply find an occupation elsewhere: that has always been te case since the beginning of the industrial revolution. If the EU is clever enough they will introduce that tax anyway - it would be a clever new way to generate more tax income out of nothing ...
Personally I think the actual problem that this tax tries to solve is an entirely different one: that companies have too many ways and loopholes to avoid taxes. And that is a problem only a global economy system and legislation can solve. If all companies would pay a reasonable amount of taxes, then this would include part of the benefits they reap from using robots instead of human workers. Introducing a robot tax would achieve only part of that. And then companies would find ways to avoid it the same way they avoid all the other taxes, e. g. have their robots work in countries without such a legislation...
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
Same argument could have been made for the introduction of the steam-engine.
It's simple; we'll have fewer steel-driving people, and hence, fewer taxes. Taxing the engine itself is nonsense.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed. But whether something is nonsense or not has never stopped politicians. 
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder how this experiment [^] would work on robots.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Misleading headline. The article asks is OWNERS of robots should pay taxes.
Of course this is also utterly stupid. No labour saving device has ever been taxed, and the supposition that workers being replaced needs some kind of protectionist recompense is so typical of the EU (who has pretty much also banned Uber) that it makes me want to vote out!
Other similar EU propositions, enforcing quotas on Netflix and Amazon for European films. If people dont want to watch European films then make them better!
Protectionism ALWAYS destroys in the end!
|
|
|
|
|
You europeans are tasting a bit of what Italy has done since the 80s (when the American Money for Marshall plan stopped raining from the heavens). Tax this, tax that and tax that too. We even pay taxes upon... the taxes (which is forbidden but circumvented)!! When I saw the last gas bill I almost choked because I had to pay tha VAT upon the Excise...
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
When I was six, there were no ones and zeroes - only zeroes. And not all of them worked. -- Ravi Bhavnani
|
|
|
|
|
This is why the EU needs the UK. It needs the UKs influence and simplicity, its openness and freedom, to hack a path through these ridiculous and abusive laws.
Would the EU technocrats support a UK style ecconomic system though? Thats the problem, and thats why the UK will always sit uneasilly in the EU.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: why the UK will always sit uneasilly in the EU
It might be sitting (un)easily outside the EU by tomorrow... 
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: UKs influence and simplicity, its openness and freedom
Are you sure you are speaking about the UK?
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
If robots are going to steal human jobs and otherwise disrupt society, they should at the very least pay taxes. That's really stupid. Taxes aren't levied for stealing jobs or disrupting society. I've been stealing jobs and disrupting society for years and don't pay taxes.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
That's the funniest thing I've read in a very long time.
So...since the robots will be putting into Social security, can they take out from it? I don't pay (or get paid) for my Roomba, seems like a long-term employment issue for my poor little electronic person.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Benjamin Disraeli
|
|
|
|
|
Yup, and tractors should pay taxes, too. And crane drivers should pay 500x tac, because they're putting that many Egyptian pyramid builders out of work.
Deal with change when changes occur. Trying to deal with changes beforehand is like trying to polka on quicksand.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
