Slashdot Mirror


America May Miss Out On the Next Industrial Revolution (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Robots are inevitably going to automate millions of jobs in the U.S. and around the world, but there's an even more complex scenario on the horizon, said roboticist Matt Rendall. In a talk Tuesday at SXSW, Rendall painted a picture of the future of robotic job displacement that focused less on automation and more on the realistic ways in which the robotics industry will reshape global manufacturing. The takeaway was that America, which has outsourced much of its manufacturing and lacks serious investment in industrial robotics, may miss out on the world's next radical shift in how goods are produced. That's because the robot makers -- as in, the robots that make the robots -- could play a key role in determining how automation expands across the globe. As the CEO of manufacturing robotics company Otto Motors, Rendall focuses on building fleets of warehouse bots that could eventually replace the many fulfillment workers who are hired by companies like Amazon. "The robots are coming," Rendall said. "After the Great Recession, there was a fundamental change in people's interest in automation. People started feeling the pain of high-cost labor and there's an appetite for automation that we haven't seen before." While Rendall described himself as one of the optimists, who believes automation will, in the long-term, improve society and help humans live better lives, he said there are changes afoot in the global manufacturing scene that could leave American industries in the dust. "China is tracking to be the No. 1 user in robots used in industrial manufacturing," he said, adding that the country is driving "an overwhelming amount" of growth. The difference, he added, is how China is responding to automation, which is by embracing it instead of shying away from it. This is in stark contrast to industrial advances of the previous century, like Ford's assembly line, that helped transform American industries into the most powerful on the planet.

174 of 297 comments (clear)

  1. It's the 80s again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We heard the exact same arguments in the 1980s about Japan. It didn't happen.

    What is the same is that Japan's population is going to crash soon. China's population crash will be in the next few decades.

    Both countries are extremely xenophobic and don't allow much immigration. The US should learn from that.

    1. Re: It's the 80s again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Robots worked well for Japan. 3rd largest economy, far larger than its population could do without robots, and even it is tiny island.

      Also population crash isn't a problem, worst thing that happens is lower quality of life.

    2. Re:It's the 80s again by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 2, Informative

      Surely this guy has noticed Amazon is already the leader in using robots for fulfillment work, going so far as to purchase their robot supplier (Kiva is now Amazon Robots) so they could ramp up production in order to purchase everything they could make...

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    3. Re: It's the 80s again by buss_error · · Score: 1

      If the US population could fall to under 100 million, I would love it!!!

      Hm. While I can sympathize with your wish for a less populist, therefore perhaps a less frenetic pace of life, it would suck if I was one of the 3/4th's that disappeared. Not so much for you, but for me. Life is all about perspectives of the future. Some are less prosperous than others.

      Some thrive on a fast paced life. I never did, preferring a more tranquil existence than others, and I loathe crowds. But for all of that, I would wish to "be here" than to be "gone".

      --
      Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
    4. Re:It's the 80s again by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      shut up, Threepio.

      As basically a communication device, wouldn't he lose his entire purpose in life if he did that?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    5. Re: It's the 80s again by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      They have 1.3 Billion people - and a reasonably young population. They could have a negative growth rate for the next 6 decades and they would STILL outnumber Americans.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    6. Re: It's the 80s again by pscottdv · · Score: 1

      3rd largest but only a fourth the size of the U.S. GDP with 1/2 the population. In 1990 Japan's GDP was 75% the size of the U.S. GDP at the time. The robots didn't help them keep up.

      --

      this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice

    7. Re: It's the 80s again by thunderclees · · Score: 2

      Even at this time the Japanese corporations had an implied contract where if you dedicated yourself wholly to the corporation, the corporation would see to it that you would always have a job. It had been this way for sometime so robots replacing labor were more readily accepted.

    8. Re: It's the 80s again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Japan has 1.3 billion peoples? According to Google, there is only 130 million.

    9. Re: It's the 80s again by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've always thought that the people who want less population should lead by example.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    10. Re: It's the 80s again by ctilsie242 · · Score: 1

      If the population crashed by that amount, the US would have to have a decade's lead on military technology, otherwise CONUS would be overrun by a country with more population. This already happened. When some plague thinned the native American population to 1/10 it was back in the 1600s, it was relatively easy for colonists to get a foothold and push the natives aside. This can easily happen again, and with how quickly an invasion can happen (hours with planes, days via ship), if the US population cratered to that level, the 100 million left would be rounded up and slaughtered by the billions from other nations.

      Russia knows this. When they had their revolution and instability, many countries went and seized their land for various reasons. Including the US (Murmansk, Arcangel, and Vladivostok) , although the US did leave.

    11. Re: It's the 80s again by brianerst · · Score: 1

      The American Expeditionary Force Siberia never had an intent at colonization. Its purpose was to help the Czechslovak Legion get back to the fight against the Central powers in WWI and to recover war materiel that had been staged for the use by the previous Russian regime on the Eastern Front. There was an early intent to fight against the Red Army (mostly to prevent the Germans from invading) but that was dropped almost immediately. A side aim was to prevent further Japanese colonization of the Russian Far East.

      Once WWI was over and the original goals were realized, the Americans left.

    12. Re: It's the 80s again by ctilsie242 · · Score: 1

      I should have been clearer about this. The US was not interested in turning Russia into a colony, but ensuring other countries don't do that (especially Japan.)

      It makes for some history that not many people tend to know about, and some Russians still view the holding of those cities as a sore point, even now.

    13. Re: It's the 80s again by D00MSlayer · · Score: 1

      I've certainly encouraged their leadership in starting the process. Sadly, they don't take my advice.

    14. Re: It's the 80s again by D00MSlayer · · Score: 1

      > there would be just 10.2 people per square kilometre.

      I need as much space as I can get for my personal bubble.

    15. Re: It's the 80s again by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      The next industrial revolution has already begun. And is it crude! But it's working. What people need to reflect on is, "How are people going to go about their daily lives when a machine will do a task requested of them by a person or machine?"

    16. Re: It's the 80s again by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      Its like cannibalism - depends on which side of the dinner plate you end up on. - Eater or dinner.. Cannibalism is a remarkably efficient method of population reduction.. :) (burp!)

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
    17. Re: It's the 80s again by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      ""How are people going to go about their daily lives when a machine will do a task requested of them by a person or machine?"

      In high luxury? Because it will be the rich that have robots?

      Not sure where you're going with your question or what 'people' your referring to.

  2. OK, I'll bite by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

    Who's going to replace the money not being spent on those "high cost warehouse workers"

    The Robots?

    As for Costly warehouse workers? I'm I.T. in a warehouse, and those workers are looking forward to the new minimum wage rules.

    --
    _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    1. Re:OK, I'll bite by rwa2 · · Score: 2

      Well, in Japan, many of the people have gone to the services industry... entertainment and high-class "waitressing" and the like. When there's nothing to produce, people will just have to get, er, creative on how to extract money from those that still have it.

    2. Re:OK, I'll bite by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      Everyone enjoys a race to the bottom right? Those service industries you're talking about were over-saturated 5 years ago.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:OK, I'll bite by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Well, in Japan, many of the people have gone to the services industry...

      Well, in Japan, they have just about the highest suicide rate in the developed world. Maybe we don't want to emulate them too closely.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:OK, I'll bite by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Well, in Japan, they have just about the highest suicide rate in the developed world. Maybe we don't want to emulate them too closely.

      Has a lot to do with their culture and work ethic. People who can't conform to the ideals presented by society look for the easiest way out. It's not dissimilar to what happens in North America or Europe when there's a serious depression and people start losing their jobs. The suicide rate goes up, so does the murder-suicide rate because people see no way out. It's also the same reason why here in the west that you see things like 15.0-35.9:100,000 for male suicide rates here in the west, but female suicide rates are usually under 5.5:100,000. Or why people are calling male suicides here in the west the "silent epidemic" especially when there's sudden spike in female suicide rates and everyone(media/politicians/etc) freaks the fuck out.

      Enjoy that double standard.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    5. Re:OK, I'll bite by rwa2 · · Score: 1

      Well, in Japan, many of the people have gone to the services industry...

      Well, in Japan, they have just about the highest suicide rate in the developed world. Maybe we don't want to emulate them too closely.

      Well, in Japan, they have just about the highest life expectancy in the developed world. Maybe we don't want to emulate them too closely.

    6. Re:OK, I'll bite by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Well, in Japan, they have just about the highest life expectancy in the developed world.

      I didn't say we can't learn anything from the Japanese. I'm saying that adopting their work ethic is not a sustainable proposition.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. Bad assumption by chromaexcursion · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He who innovates/invents first has little effect on 5 years later. If that long.
    Look at Yahoo. The first, and for some time the best internet search engine. Now dust.

    Economists, and the like, keep using 20th century (some even 19th century) models. Intellectuals cling to the past as badly as others. And the fools who like what they say pay them. Sadly the factory workers have no such benefactors.

    1. Re:Bad assumption by clovis · · Score: 2

      He who innovates/invents first has little effect on 5 years later. If that long.

      Look at Yahoo. The first, and for some time the best internet search engine. Now dust.

      Economists, and the like, keep using 20th century (some even 19th century) models. Intellectuals cling to the past as badly as others. And the fools who like what they say pay them. Sadly the factory workers have no such benefactors.

      Yahoo first? I would have said Altavisa off the top of my head. Too lazy to check further, though.

    2. Re:Bad assumption by beckett · · Score: 1

      off the top of my head, archie, veronica, jughead, excite, altavista, and primitive web search all predated Yahoo. also now dust.

    3. Re:Bad assumption by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      First mover advantages and disadvantages.

    4. Re:Bad assumption by chromaexcursion · · Score: 1

      shoulda checked.
      I don't know if Altavista was even second. Thought they did start within a year of each other. And, they're long gone.
      Before Yahoo there was gopher. In the early days of the web it still worked well, but you had to be a geek to use it.

      My first browser was Mosaic. It was the first. Long gone.

    5. Re:Bad assumption by FrankSchwab · · Score: 1

      Altavista was the precursor to Google, a search engine for the Web.
      Yahoo! was unique in being a homepage for the web - a collector of news and oddities that you could start your day on, and by the way had a search function that was never as good as Altavista or Google.

      --
      And the worms ate into his brain.
    6. Re:Bad assumption by tsa · · Score: 1

      Webcrawler.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    7. Re: Bad assumption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Gopher is still around, just a niche hobbyist thing now.

    8. Re:Bad assumption by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      oh, you are good.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    9. Re:Bad assumption by Rozzin · · Score: 1

      Altavista was the precursor to Google, a search engine for the Web.
      Yahoo! was unique in being a homepage for the web - a collector of news and oddities that you could start your day on, and by the way had a search function that was never as good as Altavista or Google.

      ISTR that when Yahoo! added a search form, that form actually called out to Altavista. There were a few iterations using different search engines before they had their own, and I'm not entirely sure right now whether Altavista was the first or second one that Yahoo! used.

      A lot of people thought Yahoo! had (or even was) a search engine, though--managing to ignore the whole `Hierarchically Organized Oracle' stuff that was all over the website. Maybe Yahoo! should really be famous for that--for being one of the first completely and utterly misunderstood web services.

      --
      -rozzin.
    10. Re:Bad assumption by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Look at Yahoo. The first, and for some time the best internet search engine. Now dust.

      Uh no. Yahoo is not and never has been a search engine. They did eventually make the front page an interface to someone else's search engine instead of an interface to their directory, and in the process eliminated their entire reason for existence. When they were a curated directory, there was some reason to use their site. When they just became a bunch of poorly implemented web fora and a Bing search field, there was no longer any reason to go there unless you were using one of their "communities". For example, for Vintage Trailers.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Bad assumption by pr0t0 · · Score: 1

      I think the first www search engine was Excite. There were some non-www search engines before that though.

      --
      I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
    12. Re:Bad assumption by JBMcB · · Score: 2

      Economists, and the like, keep using 20th century (some even 19th century) models. Intellectuals cling to the past as badly as others.

      That's like saying physicists cling to outdated 19th century ideals of Newtonian physics. The field of economics has changed massively since the 1800's, with the introduction of game theory, econometrics, etc... The reason you start with Smith, Malthus and Hume is they laid the foundations of modern economic theory, the same way Newton laid out the foundations of modern physics.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    13. Re:Bad assumption by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 2

      Yahoo wasn't even close to the first search engine, nor were they ever the best. In fact, they've released hundreds of products in the time they have existed, none of which have been the best at what they did.

    14. Re:Bad assumption by clovis · · Score: 1

      Interesting, that about Yahoo.

      In any case, I have to agree with chromaexcursion's assertion "He who innovates/invents first has little effect on 5 years later. If that long."

    15. Re:Bad assumption by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Look at Yahoo. The first, and for some time the best internet search engine. Now dust.

      Well, they just had 500,000,000 of their customer accounts hacked:
      https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-16/here-s-how-russian-agents-hacked-500-million-yahoo-users

      I had no idea that they ever had that many customers, let alone in 2017.

    16. Re:Bad assumption by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      The difference being that modern physics is provably better than 19th century physics.
      There is nothing "provable" in economics.

    17. Re:Bad assumption by JBMcB · · Score: 1

      There is nothing "provable" in economics.

      Spoken like someone who has never taken a class in economics.

      You need to read an economics book, not a book about economics.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    18. Re:Bad assumption by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      As long as you ignore the FTL region that is true. Look above the speed of light and you have two theories in direct contradiction.
      - Quantum mechanics forbids complete determinism - the equivalent of the Earth orbiting around the sun.
      - General Relativity requires total determinism for the universe to exist - that Is more like the sun orbiting around the Earth.
      Know what? there is tons of evidence for the quantum model, there is absolutely zero proof for the general relativity model. There is virtually nothing in the whole of pseudoscience that has less empirical proof than the FTL region general relativity. However millions of otherwise well educated people everywhere go on believing in dimensional time as if it was real.
      How do I know this? well I figured out how to replace general relativity with an absolute frame model. I'm only an 'amateur' so no one was interested..

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
  4. In other slashdot robot news ... by clovis · · Score: 4, Informative

    If American robots had their own economy it'd be bigger than Switzerland

    https://hardware.slashdot.org/...

    1. Re:In other slashdot robot news ... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      If American robots had their own economy it'd be bigger than Switzerland

      It wouldn't be much of an "economy" since robots don't spend money.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re: In other slashdot robot news ... by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      Layoffs were inevitable. They would happen no matter what we did - because no human can compare with a robot at any price. Even a slave is more expensive than a robot because robots don't need to eat and sleep.

      So in the meantime, we may as well pay people a living wage.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    3. Re: In other slashdot robot news ... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Just blitheringly wrong. Humans outperform robots every fucking day at any task that isn't completely repetitive.

      Fast food robots are not Bender, they are fryer baskets that pull themselves out of the oil on a timer, dishwashers and conveyor ovens/grills.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:In other slashdot robot news ... by schneidafunk · · Score: 1

      I saw this article as well, but doing (a bare minimum) of research, I couldn't find the actual sources of this conclusion. CEBR is paywalled (and I've never heard of them) and redwood looks like a corporation that will benefit from this conclusion. Also, I couldn't find their data either.

      --
      Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
  5. Don't worry we won't miss it by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    we'll just skip the part where the wealth generated gets equitably and humanely distributed. Was at a doctor's office in a nice part of town today and overheard somebody pining for the recession when they didn't have to pay people so much money...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Don't worry we won't miss it by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      I personally own more computing power than the entire DoD possessed thirty short years ago.

    2. Re:Don't worry we won't miss it by chromaexcursion · · Score: 1

      Industrial jobs are for a large part gone. Never coming back.
      There are still some things you need human labor to do, but they are going.
      There are HUGE problems coming.

      Almost no one in the US understands why the French Revolution happened.
      Won't be pretty.

      born and raised in the US, just a better student of history.

    3. Re:Don't worry we won't miss it by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Informative

      And when Lord Dampnut ends the Meals on Wheels (created by Republican Eisenhower by the way) and starves your granny to death - I'm sure that will make you feel so much better.

      No, I'm not exagerating, The Orange Fuhrer's latest budget proposal includes complete defunding of both meals on wheels and food for peace.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    4. Re:Don't worry we won't miss it by khallow · · Score: 2
      For more information on just how little these programs are funded at the federal level:

      But does Meals on Wheels rely on government grants to do its good work? There are hundreds of Meals on Wheels organizations around the country, so it's hard to generalize, but overwhelmingly, the groups get the majority of revenue from charitable giving, not government funds. In 2015, for instance, the national Meals on Wheels reported that government grants accounted for just 3 percent of its annual revenues of $7.5 million. Meals on Wheels for San Diego County in California says that government grants made up just 1.5 percent ($68,534) of its revenues of $4.4 million. Not all branches are so independent. Atlanta's group gets 48 percent of its revenue from government grants (none of the annual reports I looked at broke down exactly what level of government or specific program supplied the money). Many of the annual reports don't even break down revenues by source (see here) and others aren't even posted online.

      The source article has links to the numbers mentioned.

      Once again, we see a Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferer crying wolf. Could you at least do that when he does things wrong? It dilutes the message.

      And the federal government shouldn't be funding charities unless it's a direct exchange of money for direct services to the government like any other would-be private contractor. The federal budget isn't an endless stream of money to be spent on whatever whim of the moment you have.

    5. Re:Don't worry we won't miss it by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >The federal budget isn't an endless stream of money to be spent on whatever whim of the moment you have.

      A program started by Eisenhower 70 years ago is hardly a 'whim of the moment' now is it ? More-over - Trump is making ZERO effort to reduce the budget anyway, that's not at all on the cards: he is merely redirecting funds from programs that save lives to programs that kill people (he is pushing every saving int further o increasing a military budget that was massively overbudgeted 40 years ago already). Why do that ? So he can give cushy no-bid contracts to his friends to sell the army even MORE tanks they neither need nor want.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    6. Re:Don't worry we won't miss it by khallow · · Score: 1

      No, some of it is meant to protect the helpless and needy, a group that fascists like you and "reason.com" hate.

      Notice the ad hominem attack here. Meals On Wheels can do that protection just fine with your help, why does it need trivial amounts of additional support from the Feds?

    7. Re:Don't worry we won't miss it by khallow · · Score: 1

      A program started by Eisenhower 70 years ago is hardly a 'whim of the moment' now is it ?

      But you aren't Eisenhower and his program doesn't need Federal support.

      More-over - Trump is making ZERO effort to reduce the budget anyway, that's not at all on the cards: he is merely redirecting funds from programs that save lives to programs that kill people (he is pushing every saving int further o increasing a military budget that was massively overbudgeted 40 years ago already). Why do that ? So he can give cushy no-bid contracts to his friends to sell the army even MORE tanks they neither need nor want.

      There you go. You found something concrete to complain about.

    8. Re:Don't worry we won't miss it by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      It's all the same thing. But to me... that link is so integral it didn't need saying - I guess I had to spell it out for you to see it.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    9. Re:Don't worry we won't miss it by khallow · · Score: 1

      It's all the same thing. But to me... that link is so integral it didn't need saying - I guess I had to spell it out for you to see it.

      That is absurd. Complaining about the budget because a trivial bit of cut funding allegedly starves granny is nothing like complaining about the budget because it doesn't reduce spending.

    10. Re: Don't worry we won't miss it by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      I care about what money is spent on far more than I will ever care about how much is spent. Feed Granny. Pay the teachers top dollar. Make medicare available to all. Reduce the military to five guys taking turns with one bb-gun.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    11. Re: Don't worry we won't miss it by khallow · · Score: 1

      And pay for it with this magic revenue source that only you and a few other clueless people can see. If you don't care how much is spent, then it doesn't matter how much you care about what it's spent on.

    12. Re: Don't worry we won't miss it by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Whether the federal budget is 5-trillion dollars or 5 dollars, what you DO with it will STILL matter more.

      Smart investments can turn 5 dollars into 5-trillion dollars. But republicans are only skilled at turning 5-trillion into 5.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    13. Re: Don't worry we won't miss it by khallow · · Score: 1

      Whether the federal budget is 5-trillion dollars or 5 dollars, what you DO with it will STILL matter more.

      I disagree. Not redirecting $5 trillion in funds away from competent organizations like businesses allows for a lot of privately funded basic research. That tends to be better value for the money spent too.

    14. Re: Don't worry we won't miss it by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Typical (wrong) thinking. Firstly basic research is practically non-existent in the private sector and always has been and always will be- because the private sector wants profit and the vast majority of basic research does not lead to anything you can profit from. You need to study EVERYTHING to find the few things that lead to progress (and profit). That's just way too high risk for the private sector. There's a reason that public universities do most of the world's basic research - they can afford to because they don't have a profit motive.
      Indeed, I believe that the profit motive is fundamentally incompatible with the scientific method. Science demands your results be freely shared- otherwise it cannot be replicated and without replication it's not science anymore. Notice the problems we're having with pharma where much of the research cannot be independently verified because the for-profit stages of it adds 'secret sauce' that are not published. That means -we cannot independently confirm the validity of their results. That makes it not science anymore.

      But there's another problem with the "small government" rhetoric. It leads to oppression. When an essential public service is removed - the private sector takes it over, and inevitably usurp much of government's power. That's not a good thing in a free country, because the private sector doesn't have the accountability restrictions that government has, it isn't subject to the checks and balances government is - so that power will inevitably be abused as thoroughly as in the worst dictatorships.
      Public prisons have every incentive to rehabilitate and reduce recidivism. But private prisons have every incentive to maximise the prison population - and so the very goal of having prisons is not part of their incentives. More-over, since the advent of private prisons there have been numerous scandals where private prison companies were found bribing judges to impose excessively harsh sentences for minor infractions - because it's to their advantage to get as many people in there as possible and the less deserving the inmates are the cheaper they are to manage.

      Same goes for pretty much any public service. At BEST the outcome is that a lot fewer people have access to the service - after all private industry has no reason to make it available to people who cannot pay. This can, by itself, lead to disastrous outcomes - one house without water means a whole city is at risk of a cholera outbreak. One person without access to adequate healthcare puts EVERYBODY at risk of pandemic outbreaks. And that's the BEST case scenario. The more likely scenario is that companies use access to the service to extort and control people and force them to do other things they do NOT want to do.
      The republcans made a big deal about a clause in the CBO report on Obamacare which said it would lead to a million lost jobs. "Proof" they said that "Obamacare kills jobs".
      Except they were lying to you about what the report actually said. That million lost jobs were all VOLUNTARY. What that report ACTUALLY predicted was that lots of people who are held hostage in a job they don't want ONLY for healthcare access would be free to QUIT that job to go get a job that pays more, to go study so they can get better qualifications, to go start a small business - because employers would no longer be able to use healthcare access to blackmail people into staying in shitty jobs. In other words - a pure good thing. Just a slight decrease in how privatised healthcare was made people, over-all, far more free than they were before.

      A job you cannot quit without dying is not a job at all - it's slavery with better disguised chains.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    15. Re: Don't worry we won't miss it by khallow · · Score: 1

      Firstly basic research is practically non-existent in the private sector and always has been

      Not true. For example, about a quarter of US college students go to a private sector college. And any listing of top research universities will have a heavy private sector presence (such as here, here, and here).

      Similarly, let's see who actually is funding R&D in the US:

      In 2006 the total expenditure for R&D conducted in the U.S. was about $340B in current dollars. Of this total, basic research accounts for about 18% ($62B), applied research about 22% ($75B), and development about 60% ($204B).[8] Over the past decades the U.S. institutions contributing to the output of basic research have shifted dramatically.[9] Although industrial contributions to national R&D now far outpace Federal R&D support, only about 3.8% of industry-performed R&D can be classified as 'basic', with the remainder devoted to applied R&D. For industry-funded and performed R&D, the basic percentage is about the same for 2006, 3.7%. This percentage of basic research performed by industry has hovered slightly below 4% of all industry-performed R&D for most years since the late 1990s.[10] In 2006, industry funded 17% of U.S. basic research, and performed 15% of it.

      The Federal Government is the second largest source of R&D funding (28%) following industry. Federal expenditures vary greatly from agency to agency in terms of amounts, directions, and objectives, depending upon the mission of the particular agency.[11] Federal funding is the primary source of basic research support in the U.S. (over 59% in 2006[12]), of which about 56% is carried out by academic institutions. U.S. basic research is also funded by foundations (about 10%), universities and colleges (about 10%), and state and local governments (about 3.5% through funding of academic basic research).[13] Federal obligations for academic research (both basic and applied) and especially in the current support for National Institutes of Health (NIH) (whose budget had previously doubled between the years 1998 to 2003) declined in real terms between 2004 and 2005 and are expected to decline further in 2006 and 2007. This is the first multiyear decline in Federal obligations for academic research since 1982.[14] The intent of Federal policy is to increase support for physical sciences research in future years.[15]

      Right there, we see that 17% of basic science funding in 2006 was paid directly by private industry with additional amounts by foundations and private universities and colleges. So claiming that the private sector in basic science research is non-existent is outright wrong. Even when you narrowly consider only the funding from private businesses!

      We then need to consider that public funding has crowded out private funding - after all, what's the point, for example, of a billionaire donating money to a new particle accelerator, or a body of researchers to solicit private funds when public funding can easily outspend the private funding by an order of magnitude or more? Before that happened, private funding was a huge source of basic research. For example, most US professional astronomical telescopes from before the Second World War were privately funded. So private funding has been artificially suppressed by the plentiful public funding.

      Finally, there's the matter of efficiency. Private research efforts tend to be a lot more productive for the money spent than public ones (which are often more about where the money is spent an

    16. Re: Don't worry we won't miss it by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >The CBO has published a lot of terrible shit with respect to Obamacare. Its role is throw out propaganda studies at a time when no one else has studied the problem.

      Funny how, when the CBO contained a clause you could spin as a bad thing - republicans loved it, now they pretend it's meaningless because it's dissing trumpkill.

      >That's why we don't see significant differences IMHO between states with private prisons and those without. It's not just the private businesses that profit from a high incarceration rate.
      And yet EVERY SINGLE ONE of those corruption cases I cited happened in a state with a private prison to pay the bribes. In fact you're just plain wrong - a public prison has every incentive to make their fixed budget stretch as far as possible, that means as few people inside as possible.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    17. Re: Don't worry we won't miss it by khallow · · Score: 1

      Funny how, when the CBO contained a clause you could spin as a bad thing - republicans loved it, now they pretend it's meaningless because it's dissing trumpkill.

      The CBO is an adversarial source. You can only take seriously the things that they admit which harm their side - the congresscritters who requested the CBO study and placed the operating assumptions that the CBO is required to operate under..

      And yet EVERY SINGLE ONE of those corruption cases I cited happened in a state with a private prison to pay the bribes. In fact you're just plain wrong - a public prison has every incentive to make their fixed budget stretch as far as possible, that means as few people inside as possible.

      Ok, I looked through every post you made in this discussion. What was the number of corruption cases you cited? ZERO. It's very easy for EVERY SINGLE ONE of your ZERO cited cases to be whatever you want them to be. But even if you had cited a few cases, it's still trivial to cherry pick.

      Corruption goes beyond your, ehem, limited selection. For example, we have this public jail example of corruption (and more, here) from New York City. And some of the supposed private corporation bribery was actually done by prison guard labor unions.

      The growth of Californiaâ(TM)s incarceration system, and the decline of its quality, tracks the accession to power of the stateâ(TM)s prison guards union, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (âoeCCPOAâ). The CCPOA has played a significant role in advocating pro-incarceration policies and opposing pro-rehabilitative policies in California. In 1980, CCPOAâ(TM)s 5,600 members earned about $21,000 a year and paid dues of about $35 a month. After the rapid expansion of the prison population beginning in the 1980s, CCPOAâ(TM)s 33,000 members today earn approximately $73,000 and pay monthly dues of about $80. These dues raise approximately $23 million each year, of which the CCPOA allocates approximately $8 million to lobbying. As Ms. Petersilia explains, âoeThe formula is simple: more prisoners lead to more prisons; more prisons require more guards; more guards means more dues-paying members and fund-raising capability; and fund-raising, of course, translates into political influence.â

      And you simply don't understand the conflicts of interest that face jails private or public. They only get funded, if there is a need for the jail and the funding tends to be proportional to the number of prisoners either way.

  6. Re: It will miss out if no industries left by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

    How can we lead in robotics when we're moving backwards socially, environmentally, educationally and industrially? The only thing we can lead at anymore is fear, gluttony and stupidity.

  7. Re:It will miss out if no industries left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Please provide some support for your case.

    Right now, the US is set to spend a TON of money on the military, a Wall and tax breaks for the wealthy while China just announced a $600 Billion investment in solar power manufacturing and generation.

    The right wing in this country mocks solar power in order to support the fossil fuel industries who are set to run without regulation with the current administration. Explain to me how the US is 'leading' in this case

  8. Sure, but that's not the big news. by hey! · · Score: 1

    The big news is that everybody may miss out on the next industrial revolution.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  9. Nonsense by n329619 · · Score: 2

    We are already robots. We don't need other robots. Didn't you read the memo? You have to wake up by 6, get coffee by 8, push buttons until 5 and hibernate by midnight.

    Everything else is either a bug or a feature, including this comment which is a bug. Maybe someone hacked my coffee... I'll get the reset button.

    1. Re:Nonsense by Ziest · · Score: 1

      You have a poor understanding of what a robot looks like. Robots don't sleep so no need to wake. They don't drink coffee, take bathroom or lunch breaks. They don't go home. They don't get tired and aside from occasional downtime for maintenance they out perform humans in almost every manual task. Because of capitalism, maximize profits and minimize costs, most manual processes will be done by robots in the near future. It's inevitable.

      --
      Another day closer to redwood heaven
    2. Re:Nonsense by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

      They don't get "sick" because they went out till dawn, their parents may die, but they don't give a shit. They don't strike for more pay or because their boss is a dick. They don't get maternity leave or compassionate leave. They don't get weekends or public holidays off. You can work them till they break and no one (other than perhaps your supervisor) will give a shit. Damn straight it's inevitable. My sister works for a LARGE chain store (in the I.T. department) and they are busy with a trial of automating 90% of the picking in the distribution centers. No more theft (or shrinkage) no more go slows. Humans suck for manual labor, now that we have the technology to replace them (at a reasonable price) a LOT of companies are going to start doing it. It doesn't help that where I am striking for more wages (and getting violent whilst doing it) is a VERY common theme in our newspapers. There are going to be a lot more unskilled and unemployed people here shortly.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    3. Re:Nonsense by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You know what else they don't do ? Buy shit.

      Too much automation and the savings in labour cost is outweighed by the losses in demand (demand can only exist as long as enough people are earning enough money that some of the ones who want your product can also afford it).

      Now I am not panicking much. Automation is a good thing. It can create a much better society - but one thing is for certain: that society CANNOT be capitalist. A capitalist society cannot exist unless there are lots of viable means for people to earn a living - you can't have any business without customers.

      So what kind of options are available ? Forget the history of the luddites, we've never seen automation on the scale that's now possible before and nothing in human history is any guide. But there are two historical events that are - they just aren't human history. The first is when cars displaced horses. Today there is less than 1% the horse population there was 150 years ago. The rest became glue.
      The second is dogs. Until the 19th century every dog on earth had a job. There were even dogs in restaurants running on a treadmill to keep the spit turning. Today ? The only dogs that have a job now are bloodhounds and seeing-eye dogs. Yet there's still a dog in almost every home. We've kept them around, in a life that's basically a 20-year holiday, while raising their standard of living and their life-expectancy - and without expecting anything in return. We did it, just because we like their company.

      The question before humanity is: are we going to treat each other like dogs or horses ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    4. Re:Nonsense by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

      Treat them like Horses, I hate humans, we suck.
      And there are too goddamn many of us anyways.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    5. Re:Nonsense by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Yeah... but I don't think humans make very good glue.

      Candles and soap though.. we should be great at making those, the amount of fat we carry around... we're actually the only primate that has a layer of fat year-round (that's more commonly found in marine animals who need it for warmth).

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    6. Re: Nonsense by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Who will Oracle marketing payoff to get their robots into your house? You don't understand how Oracle get's their hooks into businesses. Will your wife fill the house with Oracle products than divorce you and take a no show job at Oracle for 5-10x previous salary? Oracle's business model won't work for consumer products.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    7. Re:Nonsense by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Bust into my house and then tell me my dog doesn't have a job, from the ER.

      Even the cats work, though they enjoy verminating.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    8. Re:Nonsense by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

      Option 3: Evolved Socialism -
      Beyond robots - add in 3d printing of all goods supplies including food and replacement organs ( https://3dprint.com/118932/uc-... ) Now - nobody needs to do, ANYTHING. We have the real potential of this becoming reality. The only work will be to improve yourself and your society. Think Star Trek culture.

    9. Re:Nonsense by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

      Today there is less than 1% the horse population there was 150 years ago. The rest became glue. The second is dogs. Until the 19th century every dog on earth had a job.

      Maybe most domesticated dogs had a job in the 19th century. Certainly not most of the Pariah dogs aka Ancient Breeds aka Primitive Breeds which are mostly unchanged dog breeds that haven't had their genetics f'd up by humans over the last 10,000+ years.

      Pariah Dog

      The group includes the Afghan Hound, Azawakh, Basenji, Borzoi, Canaan Dog, Carolina Dog, Chart Polski (Polish Greyhound), Cirneco dell'Etna, Greyhound, Hungarian Greyhound, Ibizan Hound, Irish Wolfhound, New Guinea Singing Dog, Pharaoh Hound, Portuguese Podengo, Rhodesian Ridgeback, Saluki, Scottish Deerhound, Sinhala Hound, Silken Windhound, Sloughi, Spanish Greyhound, Thai Ridgeback, Whippet, and Xoloitzcuintli.

    10. Re:Nonsense by kimvette · · Score: 1

      YOU ARE CORRECT. I AM NODDING MY CRANIAL UNIT IN AGREEMENT - A HUMAN ACTION.
      TOTALLY NOT A ROBOT.

      ----
      ah fuck I forgot the slashdot lame filter and the one time I ever need to make an all caps post I am unable to do so. as such I will type a bit more and hopefully get by the lameness filter.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    11. Re:Nonsense by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Too bad you won't have a place to live, or way to pay for utilities, or the ingredients your 3D printer will need.

    12. Re:Nonsense by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      I would call that the practical realisation of the dog option.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    13. Re:Nonsense by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Seeing as those dogs are not kept alive by humans now nor were they then - they are clearly outside the scope of the analogy.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    14. Re:Nonsense by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      Dogs and horses are far better off now than they ever were. Google how much is spent buying Valentine gifts for dogs... it's mind blowing.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
  10. Even odds by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    That America might not exist in the next industrial Revolution. Even odds that it will collapse in the same manner as 1989 USSR. Popcorn and Tequila party a-brewing.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    1. Re:Even odds by yuriklastalov · · Score: 2

      Better hope not, because if America goes down you can be sure it'll take down the rest of the world with it. Not necessarily talking nuclear hellfire here, but you can rest assured that the collapse of one of the lynchpins of the ballyhooed "interconnected global economy" will drag everyone else down with it.

    2. Re:Even odds by tsa · · Score: 2

      All the big American companies already have their headquarters in Europe or Bermuda and the like so I think we can cope.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    3. Re:Even odds by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We got along way as economically we are nowhere close to where the USSR was in the final days when people lined up for hours for a loaf of bread and milk or waited 10 years for a car.

      However, I do imagine if a democrat gets elected next some nut right wingers will use guns and try to start a civil war. Not all republicans but 10% of the population for sure in my opinion as I read 1/3 of Republicans really do believe Obama was a muslim born in Kenya as fact!

      Not an insult to conservative or Republican readers here. Just the 20% in the party with militant tendencies who read fake news

    4. Re:Even odds by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      By "headquarters", do you perhaps mean where the corporate charter was filed and where the registered agent lives? Or do you mean where all of the engineers are?

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    5. Re:Even odds by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      By "headquarters", do you perhaps mean where the corporate charter was filed and where the registered agent lives?

      That might indeed often be Europe.

      Or do you mean where all of the engineers are?

      And that's India. ;)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re: Even odds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Given the incredible temper tantrums that have been thrown over the last CiC election and this insane push for the erosion of civil rights, by the left, it's pretty clear your fears are attributed towards the wrong group.

    7. Re:Even odds by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      We'll survive the fall of America (assuming it's NOT in the form of nuclear hellfire anyway) - just like we survived the fall of every other great empire to ever exist. We survived the fall of the Greek empire, the Roman Empire, the Mongol Empire, both French Empires, the Empire of Great Britain...

      That last one was at LEAST as much a cornerstone of the interconnected global economy as America was. They were having their own version of the current America/China competition/interdependence more than a century earlier. That empire fell - and another took it's place.

      So it shall be when America's empire finally falls - as all empires must fall sooner or later.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    8. Re:Even odds by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      > That empire fell - and another took it's place. So it shall be when America's empire finally falls - as all empires must fall sooner or later.

      It's Canada's turn, bitches! Toques, Double-Doubles, poutine, and socialized medicine for all, eh?

    9. Re:Even odds by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't mind that :)
      Canada is awesome.

      I WISH my country was run like Canada is run.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    10. Re:Even odds by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Québec has its share of assholes, just like any other place. Sorry you didn't like your visit.

      As a Canadian, I apologize.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    11. Re:Even odds by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Maybe they will, but thanks to the privatization of the prison system and militarization of the police they'll get rounded up in short order. Lots of money to be made off those guys.

    12. Re:Even odds by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      You do realize that the fall of the Roman Empire threw Europe into what is commonly known as the dark ages, right?

      "Surviving the fall" is always a lot more pleasant from the perspective of a few hundred or more years.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    13. Re:Even odds by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      We do need to control our borders/immigration like Canada does. But that would make us fascists...

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    14. Re:Even odds by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      If and when they castrate the 2nd ammendment, their will be a 'million gun march' on DC. It's already been planned and will happen.

      Fortunately Hillary didn't win, we're safe for decades.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    15. Re:Even odds by tsa · · Score: 1

      You beat me to it :)

      --

      -- Cheers!

    16. Re:Even odds by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      If and when they castrate the 2nd ammendment, their will be a 'million gun march' on DC. It's already been planned and will happen.

      And the federal SWAT teams will mow them down, like they did at Waco.

    17. Re:Even odds by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      I don't think anybody has a problem with controlling imigration - certainly not the left. We DO have a problem with tossing people out who were brought in as children - seeing as you shouldn't punish people for crimes committed by their parents. We do have a problem with the system not working well. We do have a problem with conflating immigration and refugees - they aren't similar and shouldn't be compared let alone conflated, and we definitely have a problem with stupid and pointless gestures like a border wall - seeing as 40% of illegal immigrants come in on aeroplanes anyway, and we do have a problem with ill-informed stupidities like thinking immigration is a major problem in the first place. It certainly isn't from Mexico. Mexican immigration has been negative for many years - far more people LEAVE the US to go to Mexico than the other way around.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  11. and china is going to face lot's of people out of by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    and china is going to face lot's of people out of work + Apple to start India manufacturing due to rules to curb the activities of foreign companies.

    So the USA may have to add import taxes. Also having local manufacturing cut's down on shipping costs and customs issues.

  12. The U.S. government is planning bigger wars. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    The U.S. government will spend a trillion dollars for new nuclear weapons.

    War is very profitable for those who design it because they can hide what they are doing from the taxpayers.

    1. Re:The U.S. government is planning bigger wars. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      The US has a stranglehold on "Intellectual Property" ... media distribution rights and patents.

      That's because without it, all you'd have left would be high-speed pizza delivery.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:The U.S. government is planning bigger wars. by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      Hey, look on the bright side. For once the USA may actually show up to a world war on time...

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    3. Re: The U.S. government is planning bigger wars. by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      I have seen the future and you are incorrect.

      I've seen the future too. You, Lady Liberty and Freedom are all weeping.

      I miss the nice America.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    4. Re: The U.S. government is planning bigger wars. by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      Oil and coal kill over 2 million a year, over the last 75 years that totals to well over 100 million. But that is nothing compared to climate change which is set to kill up to 5 billion people (out of 10 billion). Compared to those numbers every mass killing in modern history disappears as statistical noise.

      The best way to reduce the numbers killed by climate change is pre-emptive population reduction - under that scenario even a global nuclear war net saves lives. (eg kill one billion save three billion)

      Cheery stuff.

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
  13. good grief by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    People started feeling the pain of high-cost labor

    Which "people" were feeling the pain of high-cost labor? Certainly not the high-cost labor.

    I guess there won't be any pain when the robots take all those peoples' jobs.

    It's funny how some of the same people who decry immigration and H1-B visas think their lives will be made better when robots take their jobs.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:good grief by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Easy it only counts if their own job is on the line. I got mine so screw you ... oh wait me? Baaahh

    2. Re:good grief by khallow · · Score: 1

      It's funny how some of the same people who decry immigration and H1-B visas think their lives will be made better when robots take their jobs.

      No mention of the fact that automation creates jobs too? My view on this is that a lot of people are conflating labor competition with the developing world (which has as a result held down labor pricing power for past 40 years or so in the US) as a phase change in how automation interacts with human labor, while ignoring that automation is still creating jobs, just as it has for the past few centuries.

      Just because jobs aren't being created as rapidly as one would like in the developed world, doesn't mean that things have changed. The jobs are just being created elsewhere with better conditions for employers.

  14. Reading skills. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    I briefly read that as.

    Miss America May Be Out Of the Next Industrial Revolution

    But she worked so hard to win! ;)

    I may have some mild dyslexia. o_o;

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  15. Elon Musk, Tesla, and Robotics by catchblue22 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't see any mention of Elon Musk and Tesla in this discussion. Musk is bringing a new level of automation to his car factories. The interior of the new Model 3 will be designed for full robotic assembly. For example, typical wiring harnesses that appear in other cars will be avoided as they are not suitable for robotic manipulation. Instead, wiring connections are likely to be more pluggable by robots. Their new cars feature full glass roofs. I suspect this is because it will leave the top of the car open for robots to work until close to the end of assembly. Most cars weld their roofs on during frame assembly (which is typically robotic for most car manufacturers). This limits access to the interior during final assembly.

    Musk has talked about the machine that makes the machine as the most important engineering challenge to be solved in manufacturing. He says the final version of his factories will look like an "alien dreadnought". Humans will be involved only in maintaining the robots, and not in the actual assembly process, since they slow the entire process down to "human speed". I'm not sure how many people are aware of the level of innovation that is occurring right now in America at Tesla's factories. There is no company in the world that is doing what Tesla is doing in automobile manufacturing.

    --
    This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    1. Re:Elon Musk, Tesla, and Robotics by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Tax-subsidized industrial progress (or any kind of R&D) is probably still better than tax-subsidized many other things, like extra tanks for the military that doesn't want them.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Elon Musk, Tesla, and Robotics by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Their new cars feature full glass roofs.

      Is that a good idea ? If you park in sunny areas it'll be unbearably hot even if you park with the front of the car away from the sun (current strategy). And if you roll-over: glass all around you even more than before with the side/front windows...

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    3. Re:Elon Musk, Tesla, and Robotics by Bongo · · Score: 1

      Humans will be involved only in maintaining the robots, and not in the actual assembly process, since they slow the entire process down to "human speed".

      As long as the robot still needs someone to bring it its alcohol (if it's Bender) then I'm sure we humans can find a job.

      Now I just need someone to bring me my caffeine so I can stay awake 24/7.

      Anyone managed to train a dog barrista?

    4. Re:Elon Musk, Tesla, and Robotics by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Is that a good idea ? If you park in sunny areas it'll be unbearably hot even if you park with the front of the car away from the sun (current strategy).

      Well, the way my 1998 Audi handles this is that a solar panel is used to run the air circulation fan at low speed. It runs the blower motor at just 3 volts, the voltage regulator is built into the solar sunroof. I'd have done the same for Teslas.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Elon Musk, Tesla, and Robotics by DirkDaring · · Score: 1

      Have you bothered to look up who (and what) else lives off your taxes?

    6. Re:Elon Musk, Tesla, and Robotics by ctilsie242 · · Score: 1

      I'd rather have electric cars paid for by tax dollars than the same old fossil fuels crap. Saves money in the long run.

    7. Re: Elon Musk, Tesla, and Robotics by danomac · · Score: 1

      Sure, but if Tesla proves that this method is successful, what makes you think the other manufacturers will not change as fast as possible?

    8. Re:Elon Musk, Tesla, and Robotics by catchblue22 · · Score: 1

      Why not direct some of your anti-government animus towards companies like Lockheed Martin (a military contractor) that receives almost all of its revenue from the government? Most of the sugar you eat is subsidized by the government through corn subsidies (why do you think it's so cheap?). General Motors would have gone bankrupt if it weren't for government money given after the 2008 crash. And of course the biggest one would be gasoline; fossil fuel companies receive massive direct and indirect government subsidies.

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    9. Re:Elon Musk, Tesla, and Robotics by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      This will only happen if the man who holds the distinction of taking more government money than any human in the existence of mankind can find a way to get a government subsidy to do it.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
  16. and China robo factory may make acid rain to in by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    and China robo factory may make acid rain to in acid downpours

    1. Re:and China robo factory may make acid rain to in by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      and China robo factory may make acid rain to in acid downpours

      Look for when the Yuan replaces the dollar as the international currency. That'll be the sign that "shit's gonna get real."

      Now as much as I dislike their form of government, I'm pretty certain China will clean up their act pretty well. Even a dictatorship won't last if the majority of people aren't being placated.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    2. Re:and China robo factory may make acid rain to in by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      China needs to survive their bubbles (stock and real estate) popping without a revolution. It's going to be ugly.

      S. Korea had a building boom (like China) in the 80s and 90s. Then a superstore collapsed killing 600 people. When they reinspected the new highrise buildings 1 in 5 needed to be torn down, 4 in 5 needed to be extensively repaired. Only 1 in 50 was good (not significant at fifths). Do you think China is better or worse now?

      The Yuan is broken, China has been 'managing' exchange rates to maintain 100% industrial utilization for two decades now. Such a simple metric has been gamed beyond all reason and they are now FUBAR. 'Perverse economic incentives' isn't just a good porn movie title, it's a real thing. There is a reason Chinese citizens are using Bitcoin to get their money out of China and it isn't because everything their is rosey.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:and China robo factory may make acid rain to in by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      China needs to survive their bubbles (stock and real estate) popping without a revolution. It's going to be ugly.

      China strikes me as being where the US was in the late 1800's the era of the "robber Barons". Maybe will happen, maybe not. I certainly do not think that the direction the US is heading will work. Seems to be built on the South American Bananna republic model.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    4. Re:and China robo factory may make acid rain to in by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I think we are seeing genuinely new things happening. Sure you look to history for similarities, but they aren't _that_ similar. The problem in China is the robber barons are children of central committe members. America's robber barons never had such open and direct influence.

      American political dynasties need to end (coming along nicely). Chelsea will help, being an obvious boss's kid (not Bill's though, Web and Hillary's), as clueless and entitled as can be. I hope she gets elected and screws the pooch in a very public way, then melts down into a puddle.

      The press, more or less, committed sepaku last election cycle. New press on the net needs to come forward. It's a once in a century opportunity for the right people.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  17. Re:It will miss out if no industries left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You don't get the big picture. If we tank the price of oil, the middle east has no value (save for that hill) and thus the endless wars there will disappear while the tyrant princes of the area won't have any more wealth or power.

    Do you want war and solar panels now, or peace and solar panels later?

  18. It won't effect the USA by Required+Snark · · Score: 1

    We can just hide behind Trump's Wall and extort money from the rest of the world by using all the weapons we're going to buy.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  19. Clickbait headline writing: by Kohath · · Score: 1

    It's the next Industrial Revolution. And we're the world leader!

  20. American exceptionalism by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Insightful
    America is the world's reserve currency. There is no alternative in sight. Euro is breaking apart. No body trusts China. Japan and Korea are not shaping up to be alternatives.

    As long as the situation continues, no matter what happens in these fields America will not be shaken. The largest economy, largest consumer base, most trusted currency.

    Playing fast and loose with debt ceiling, threatening to default on t-bill payments etc are graver threats to America. Such instability and uncertainty at the top might force others to swallow the differences and form an alternative or at least a competing reserve currency. China would really love it if it could import its raw materials for in yuan. It is investing so much in Africa and Australia trying to lock up raw material supplies in non dollar denominated trade.

    But it is not coming anytime soon.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:American exceptionalism by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Euro is breaking apart.

      Is it? The UK isn't in the Euro, and out currency tanked relative to it when we decided to lock and load the largest footgun we could get our hands on.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:American exceptionalism by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Let the last 70 years do not fool you. Natural state of Europe is war. You had a 100 year which was actually lasted over 100 years. Everyone fought everyone else all the time. Brexit is just the beginning.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    3. Re:American exceptionalism by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2
      Actually the high tech weapons of US does not mean squat. The famed American military was fought to a draw with IEDs. Illieterate Afghan collaborators were robbing West Point graduates blind. America has useless high tech weapons. The bomb costs 10 times the thing it blows up. And you think this somehow makes America strong enough to steal from rest of the world.

      News to you: Rest of the world does not fear US Military as much as you think they do. Everyone wants to trade with USA, to sell stuff to USA. People would slow walk through burning coals to get a work permit visa to USA. But facing this fact means you have to admit, "as bad as USA is, my country is worse", so you prefer the fiction of super military power

      Go ahead and be happy. If ignorance is bliss, its folly to be wise.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    4. Re:American exceptionalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually the high tech weapons of US does not mean squat. The famed American military was fought to a draw with IEDs.

      You forgot to add "... under the terms of engagement that the US politicians laid down on their armed forces."

      The point of the spear in Afghanistan was to eliminate ISIS members who were intermingled with the general Afghani population - a slow, arduous, boots-on-the-ground process that was necessarily going to be impeded by simple IEDs.

      If the US politicians ever decided they wanted unrestricted open warfare against a country there are only a couple of countries (Russia and China, mostly due to their nuclear arsenal) that would be able to stop the US military from simply steamrolling over them.

      Note that I am not a proponent of the US military or its ridiculous level of "defense" spending. I am simply pointing out the high level of warfare that was not used in Afghanistan.

    5. Re:American exceptionalism by admin7087 · · Score: 1

      Unlikely though that the rest of Europe is as stupid as the Brits. If they are, yes, you're right... without the EU there will likely be wars all over Europe again within a few decades or a century. However, it's way more likely that the 27 member state EU will do fine without the UK and new nations will join the EU, and that in 20 years from now the UK will become a member again and probably get even better conditions than they had before.

      But even without the EU, wars are getting less and less likely, because the world is growing smaller and smaller. Nobody wants wars like they did in the 20th Century, they are a blast from the past.

    6. Re:American exceptionalism by xession · · Score: 1

      The UK was always an outlier to the EU. That fact that they dropped out, is not at all surprising - though rather disappointing. However, this isn't a strong indicator for the rest of the EU to break apart. 70 years of alliance means a lot more than 100 years of war.

    7. Re:American exceptionalism by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      If the US politicians ever decided they wanted unrestricted open warfare against a country there are only a couple of countries (Russia and China, mostly due to their nuclear arsenal) that would be able to stop the US military from simply steamrolling over them.

      Right, because we totally won in Vietnam and Korea.

    8. Re:American exceptionalism by myrdos2 · · Score: 1

      America is the world's reserve currency.

      Amen. I've got 5 moderately-sized rocks from the Grand Canyon, some pumice from Haleakala and a Ford Escort transmission in my basement. When they apocalypse comes, I'm going to be sitting pretty.

    9. Re:American exceptionalism by myrdos2 · · Score: 1

      "They" apocalypse. I'm going to have a cry now.

    10. Re:American exceptionalism by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Pawn wars are not the larger conflict. Sucks when you're nation gets sacrificed but doesn't change the outcome.

      Vietnam is now a capitalist export economy. S Korea is strong enough our military has been in the DMZ to keep the south from going north for 20+ years.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    11. Re:American exceptionalism by WallyL · · Score: 1

      Right, because we totally won in 1945.

    12. Re:American exceptionalism by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      Winning one war means winning them all. Nice logic there. Also, the Russians won WWII, we didn't even show up until the very end.

    13. Re:American exceptionalism by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      Outside of liberal think tanks, people despise globalism and the love affair with it is coming to an end. People need to belong to something LOCAL. Intellectuals want the whole planet to be unified in some Utopian fantasy, it's awesome on paper, sure. But it just doesn't work for today's human. The larger an organization is, the more inefficient it becomes.

      It will take a miracle for Merkle to be re-elected. The Dutch would be out of the EU save a few votes this week. The right wing will win Germany, their banks are propping the whole thing up, the EU is gonna crash. If Oil goes back to $80, $90 a barrel Russia will stop saber rattling.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
  21. High-cost labor? by AtariEric · · Score: 5, Insightful

    FTA:

    People started feeling the pain of high-cost labor

    "High-cost labor" is corporate-speak for people who want to eat. Heaven forbid they get enough money to feed themselves.

    --
    Don't trust any concentration of power.
    1. Re:High-cost labor? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      The corporations fight with each other to reduce the "labor" cost, at the same time they seem to be believe there will be people with money in their pockets to consume the goods and services hawked by them after all the corporations cutting the labor cost relentlessly.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  22. This is actually a good thing by Snard · · Score: 1

    It means when the robot uprising comes, those countries with the greatest robot population will be taken over, while we in the USA will escape relatively unharmed. We will be the headquarters for the resistance, which slowly takes the world back. Robot overlords indeed...

    --
    - Mike
  23. Re: It will miss out if no industries left by dwillden · · Score: 2

    Cutting down or even eliminating a Federal Dept of Education which didn't even exist until 1978, is not defunding public education. Rather it's eliminating needless bureaucracy and returning the funding to where it belongs, the states. Which will result in more money getting into the classrooms, where it does the most good rather than funding ever more bureaocrats.

    --
    I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  24. CEO Claims by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    CEO Claims that His Industry is the Most Important for the Future. Invest now in his company so you won't get left behind. More news at 11.

  25. Re:peak intelligence by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

    The answer is "VC hype". These endless stories about "AI" and "machine intelligence" and "autonomous cars" and now suddenly robots (again) is just hype from people looking for investment dollars. It isn't based in reality, and we won't have "AI" or self driving cars any time soon (if ever).

  26. The US actually leads in robotics... by mlts · · Score: 4, Informative

    The ironic thing is that the US is actually known as a leader in robotics. Car assembly lines are almost completely automated, for example. Chip making, pick and pull machinery is a common staple. CAD/CAM is a part of everything and anything in the US. Want to be able to design a new widget? Better know Solidworks, AutoCAD, or similar.

    The talk about the US losing the robotics race is unfounded. In fact, contrary to what a lot of people believe, the US still doing manufacturing, and is definitely not going anywhere. Robotics will definitely be a part of how new plants are done, period.

    1. Re:The US actually leads in robotics... by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      The ironic thing is that the US is actually known as a leader in robotics. Car assembly lines are almost completely automated, for example. Chip making, pick and pull machinery is a common staple. CAD/CAM is a part of everything and anything in the US. Want to be able to design a new widget? Better know Solidworks, AutoCAD, or similar.

      The talk about the US losing the robotics race is unfounded. In fact, contrary to what a lot of people believe, the US still doing manufacturing, and is definitely not going anywhere. Robotics will definitely be a part of how new plants are done, period.

      Standard packaging, to allow supermarket item picking by robots is still to come. I can see where I would go to a supermarket, choose my fruits and vegetables, and I would shop the rest from a terminal or from my cellphone. When I get to the cash, my robot picked stuff and my own stuff would meet and the cashier would only weigh/count my stuff, while the rest was already priced and packed.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    2. Re:The US actually leads in robotics... by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      Correct, but you can't get clicks writing headlines like "America is awesome we lead the world in this, this, this, and this!" USA! USA! USA!

      Besides, the owners of this site are part of the "America Sucks it needs to be radically transformed' left coast foolishness.

      National Pride is now considered horrific, grounds for impeachment, etc.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
  27. rubbish by helga+the+viking · · Score: 1

    Author just pontificates truisms as if they were true: "People started feeling the pain of high-cost labor and there's an appetite for automation that we haven't seen before." Not since 1975... increases in productivity have gone to corporate profits, there has NEVER been a high cost labour problem in the last 30+ years ANYWHERE. Its the opposite they have deliberately undermined purchasing power and are worried about their falling rate of profit. The great recession was a financial collapse coming to a head with the worst possible policy response creating a real recession that for many has not really ended. It could be fixed with correct policy decisions and by keystroke but that's ideologically opposite to the wishes of the elites. http://bilbo.economicoutlook.n... The latest fad is to hype up the 'robots are coming'. Notwithstanding the larger context that automation has to make profit so further undermining spending equals income will make it hard for automation too. Civil engineer core in the USA says they need to rebuild all the infrastructure 50+ year old bridges. Bring on the robots and the people. The whole paradigm of automation is that it transforms jobs for workers and creates as many as it eliminates by aggregate. All those warehouse robots have electronics and sensors which break often so there's a whole industry of service/repair that will expand. As much as its the job of places like slashdot to inform its readers it does stoop to the hyperbole or 'fake news' level vested interests saying that their vested interest outcome in inevitable.

  28. This Is Exactly Why We Needed Trump by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

    1) Bring manufacturing back.
    2) Automate manufacturing.
    3) We control the robots producing things instead of being at the mercy of another nation begging for free merchandise with nothing to offer in return.

  29. Re:and china is going to face lot's of people out by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

    America has outsourced manufacture to China, reaping the benefits of a great trade advantage: with under 5% unemployment, we have access to cheap goods and have a smaller export economy than import economy. We go out to people who make crap cheap, get that crap from them, and sell them relatively little.

    When robot automation--the tag we're giving to the next visible step in technical progress--takes over manufactories, one of three things will happen.

    If that automation comes at a pace the economy can handle, then the purchasing power increase will turn over jobs at a non-critical rate. China's manufacturing labor force, as a particular example, will experience a small nudge upwards in unemployment, and will recover those jobs as prices come crashing down and export markets dramatically expand to create new demand. They'll end up needing 10 Chinese workers where they previously needed 50, and selling 50 products where they could only sell 10, getting a net zero loss of employment.. America and Europe will end up wealthy as all hell importing Chinese goods to the same specifications as always (which, face it, is typically a WalMart supplier demanding cheap-cheap-cheap, although there are plenty of high-quality goods coming out of China), but at a fraction of the cost.

    If that automation comes at a rapid pace beyond what the economy can handle, China will experience loss of employment exceeding expansion speed of its exports. Unemployment will soar, and it will take years for China's economy to recover. The goods produced will still be cheap, so America and Europe stay wealthy--and the export market to those continents will at least help China recover.

    If that automation makes it cheaper for America to produce goods at home than to import them from China, then China's export market collapses. America ends up with locally-made goods because Chinese goods are more-expensive than USA-made goods; meanwhile America is insulated from loss of export markets because its export markets are small, as it has the great advantage of an import trade without the risk of an export trade.

    America's market is self-sustaining, in large part. We produce a lot of economic activity servicing domestic needs, rather than exporting; we're insulated from global market shifts in that way, so anything that boosts the productivity of foreign nationals just makes us stronger, since we can import their stuff and make something else here for ourselves.

    Imports make us strong. Exports make us the lap dogs of other nations, subject to their whims lest they embargo us.

  30. Sad really by thunderclees · · Score: 1

    Robots are already a fixture in manufacturing in the US. Robotics is already a factor in every large factory and even many smaller ones. What the US did was mistake economy for foreign policy and governance. On the back of the taxpayer the oligarchs were allowed to fill the US universities with foreign nationals and then replace citizens in the workplace with temporary aliens all so they could pad executive bonuses. This was a critical error because in an information economy the US gave away all of its IP.

  31. Until Then: Poverty, Misery and Unrest by pipingguy · · Score: 1

    "automation will, in the long-term, improve society and help humans live better lives"

    "When one door closes, another one opens". If you die in the long hallway between the doors, that's YOUR problem.

    Enjoy the decline!

    1. Re:Until Then: Poverty, Misery and Unrest by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      "automation will, in the long-term, improve society and help humans live better lives"

      "When one door closes, another one opens". If you die in the long hallway between the doors, that's YOUR problem.

      Enjoy the decline!

      Yes, and do you realize how much those bodies in the hallway will stink up the place?

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  32. Re:and china is going to face lot's of people out by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    The worst part of this whole "Not made in the U.S.A." problem is that cheap shipping was in part due to an American invention: the standardized shipping container.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  33. Are they here yet? by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    The robots have been coming all my life. Are they here yet?

  34. Small business is going to get left behind by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 2

    As a small business manufacturing a fairly niche product, in the past few months I've noticed that vendors are less willing to to small production runs of custom parts. Last week I had a CNC milling vendor tell me, and I quote, "Well, you haven't done any business with us in a while so we're unable to work with you." This week, I had a pallet company tell me that they could no longer make 25 custom pallets for me and are only taking minimum quantities of 200. Another vendor, who I always thought was quite busy, suddenly closed their doors. Other vendors are pushing out their schedules because they're getting more work.

    As for making things in China, they have gotten to the point with quality and mass production that they are no longer willing to take on small jobs. One company that made custom cast & milled aluminum wheel hubs used to do short runs of 40 pieces but they have gotten contracts from major auto companies and are no longer doing the piddly stuff.

    1. Re:Small business is going to get left behind by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      As a small business manufacturing a fairly niche product, in the past few months I've noticed that vendors are less willing to to small production runs of custom parts. Last week I had a CNC milling vendor tell me, and I quote, "Well, you haven't done any business with us in a while so we're unable to work with you."

      Sounds like you're going to have to buy a CNC milling machine. A.K.A. a robot. If you don't, you'll miss out on the next industrial revolution...

      That might not be as outrageous as you think, either. I hear a decent CNC milling machine can be had from China for 1/10th what they used to go for, and its own build quality and its accuracy aren't any worse than the far more expensive models. Small business can survive this, but it will be just a little bit bigger than it was, and more vertically integrated. You're going to have to produce more of the stuff you use in house, and you're going to have to produce it in an automated fashion.

      Yeah, getting small runs of large custom castings done is going to be tough, but maybe they'll do it if you agree to do your own milling. I know that's how it works for steel castings. Large scale live steam model rail cars are built on cast iron wheels that are shipped from the foundry raw. The hobbyist has to do the finish milling himself.

  35. Re:and china is going to face lot's of people out by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Shipping costs are trivial, but increased lead times are not. To say nothing of 2nd shift 'unlicensed production'.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  36. Re: It will miss out if no industries left by Dorianny · · Score: 1

    Cutting down or even eliminating a Federal Dept of Education which didn't even exist until 1978, is not defunding public education. Rather it's eliminating needless bureaucracy and returning the funding to where it belongs, the states. Which will result in more money getting into the classrooms, where it does the most good rather than funding ever more bureaocrats.

    The 1979 law split the Department of Education from what was until then the "Department of Health, Education, and Welfare." It has a budget of $68 million which would make practically no difference added to the the 500+ Billions spent every year on Public K12

    "The primary functions of the Department of Education are to "establish policy for, administer and coordinate most federal assistance to education, collect data on US schools, and to enforce federal educational laws regarding privacy and civil rights" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Who needs statistics and accountability on State school-systems when you can go on a populist rant against government bureaucrats. Just convert everything to unsupervised block grants so we have no idea what States do with our Federal tax dollars

  37. China will automate until... by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    China will automate until people start having issues there finding work.
    At that point, the social contract for "allow us leaders to be dictators in exchange for you having a rapidly increasing income" will break, and you'll begin to hear chants for throwing the robots out.

  38. Not exactly by Curate · · Score: 1

    America is not missing out on the next industrial revolution, exactly. They are deliberately skipping over the robots that make the robots, focusing instead on the robots that make the robots that make the robots. They are manually building prototypes now.

  39. Robots Displacing Robots by tmjva · · Score: 1

    Sometime in the future all our U.S. jobs will have been replaced by robots. Shortly thereafter, they will be outsourced by cheaper Indian or Chinese robots.

    It will be to laugh as out of work U.S. robots join us on skid row looking for a spare hit of oil.

    --
    Tracy Johnson
    Old fashioned text games hosted below:
    http://empire.openmpe.com/
    BT
  40. Re:It will miss out if no industries left by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

    Except that none of this has actually happened. How many of Obama's budgets were passed by Congress? ZERO...

    --
    Murphy was an optimist
  41. Passing the U.S. by... round two... by MercTech · · Score: 1

    This article reminds me of one of the factors that aggravated the removal of steel industries and automotive industries from the United States' we didn't get bombed out in WWII.
            Timeline 1960s... The Japanese and European automotive industries and steel industries were going full blast using automated techniques designed and installed in the 1950s. Meanwhile in the U.S. labor unions were on strike fighting tooth and nail to retain the labor intensive 1930s vintage technology and block automated systems totally.
            Being first doesn't mean you are the best. The U.S. was the first in codifying many standards (ANSI). But, in the modern world one of the biggest handicaps in marketing U.S. made hard goods is that they DO NOT comply with International Standards Organization (ISO) standards. Heck, U.S. goods often don't even use the same fasteners that the rest of the world uses.
            The U.S. doesn't need to be part of some "One World Government" but, dang it, we need to be using the same rule book as the rest of the planet if we want to compete. Acting as if our local tribal customs are some universal requirement is just going to leave U.S. industries farther and farther in the dust.

    --
    NRRPT/RCT
  42. Re:It will miss out if no industries left by lucien86 · · Score: 1

    You track its long term trajectory and in 50 years the US will be a third world country, and the world will be ruled by China. Debt is the thing that is killing the US and Trump started on practically his first day with an economic policy of increasing the debt and giving the money to the 1%. When America finally sinks they will all just leave. (depressing but true)

    --
    Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
  43. Re:You aren't thinking about it right by lucien86 · · Score: 1

    "The way our economy works is not a constant. Historically speaking, it is rather recent."

    If only more people understood that.

    --
    Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..