In reality, Korea has exported its unemployment to the countries that now purchase its automation-produced products, because those countries' workers used to produce the produsts themselves.
Then either all those currently employed would see a pay cut of 50%, or the companies employing them would see their labour costs rise by 100%. Thus it would be even more economic to automate those jobs, or to move the whole enterprise offshore to some country that didn't force companies to double their workforce.
Even if you're one of the lucky few who can really get 100 mbs, how many customers can your ISP support all streaming 100 mbs at the same time before your ISP's peering points get saturated and you get throttled in some manner, or need a higher priced option in order not to be throttled ? Of course, that would only happen after you've already spent the $13k.
Maybe system wide dark modes and live tiles are patented or otherwise encumbered such that it's not worth while for Google or Apple to bother duplicating them.
They're probably too embarrassed to meet. They might get asked about all the global warming we, and Europe, and Russia are having this winter. How would they explain all the media coverage of an arctic heat wave when the data show nothing ? Just more fake news ?
I think that you're correct about LEDs and the switch away from CRTs for TVs and computers. Also demand is what you can pay for. We economized and reduced our frivolous gasoline consumption. We were very wasteful of electricity because it was also cheap. The people who switch to LED lights are also likely to be the ones to turn them, the TV, and other appliances off when not needed. In this environment of stealth inflation and increasing taxation, every little bit adds up and helps.
5G will enable you to stream 4k or 8k to your phone. Do you really need 8k on a six inch screen ? Can you see the difference ? 5G will require micro cells with a tower on every street corner. To service those towers you'll need fiber to every street corner ( although that would help fiber access to the home ). Think about how much it would cost to run fiber to everywhere you now can get a 4G signal, when it's too expensive for telcos to provide most rural areas with real broadband.
4G is overkill for the needs of most phones, namely voice, and messaging, and sufficient for streaming movies in better resolution than you can see on a six inch screen. How many consumers will willingly shell out more $$$ for a phone that is only marginally better than the one they have and then only in the city core where 5G has been rolled out ? Your expensive 5G phone would fall back to 4G when you travel outside the city center. The money required to provide 5G in the most densely populated areas would provide far better service if instead were spent on infilling more 4G towers so the existing bandwidth could be shared among fewer customers.
I don't think we're arguing the same point. I agree with you that fossil energy extraction has inefficiencies and is becoming more inefficient and costly as the easiest and cheapest to produce resources have been extracted. The sum of all those shit-ton costs though is what the cost of renewables is compared to. That the cost of renewables is competitive with the rising cost of fossil energy does not make it cheap in energy-required-to-produce-and-maintain terms. In other words, renewables must incorporate a shit-ton of costs also whether we recognize them or not.
The point I'm trying to make is that energy is neither free nor cheap. Most of the cheap, easy to produce fossil energy in now gone. Renewables are unlikely to remain as low-cost to society as they are now as production ramps up ( for example hydro is not without its own problems and most of the good sites have already been developed ) but that's a different subject. There is ultimately a floor to the cost of energy ( barring cold fusion of course;-) ) and while it may be possible to automate a process, that doesn't make it cost effective to do so. The higher the cost of energy, the more processes will not be worthwhile to automate.
You are confusing the cost of stored energy with the cost to reproduce it. Fossil energy is essentially sunlight that was collected over millions of years. The cost of green energy is essentially the cost of harvesting sunlight today, and most estimates don't include the cost of storing it for future use ( e.g. solar power at night ). The cost of fossil energy is the cost of recovering previously stored sunlight. You're effectively comparing the cost of a trickle charger to the cost of a fully charged battery. There are only so many wind turbines you can put up per acre of land and only so many suitable acres, so the total quantity is limited. In addition, you would have to divert a sizable quantity of fossil energy from other uses to produce solar panels and wind turbines, not to mention converting the grid from a few central points of generation to massively distributed generation. Using some of our stock of fossil energy to build out renewables while we can is prudent, but remember that while renewable energy lasts forever, the devices to capture and store it do not. Wind turbines and solar panels ( and nukes ) have a finite lifetime ( 25 to 30 years ) and then will need to be replaced. There will be far less fossil energy available then, so a lot of renewable energy will have to be diverted at that time further reducing energy availability and increasing the relative cost. End result, while it will always be practical to automate some processes, the cost of energy will set a lower limit to what is cost effective, and we are likely to live in a future with reduced and more expensive energy.
I know I know, the green energy revolution will save us, BUT green energy will never be as plentiful or cheap as fossil energy. As the total energy available to society is reduced, regardless of the fossil renewable mix, we will have to continuously re-prioritize its uses. At some point the energy needed to automate a process will be greater than that required to do it by hand, given that we have to feed all those hands anyway. For example, think of the energy required to build and then run electric hair dryers versus just using the towel you use to dry yourself with anyway. The electric dryer is definitely more convenient and faster, but think of the energy cost.
We walk around all day in an environment filled with various organisms and diseases that are all trying to feed on us. That's why we have skin ( think firewall ), and an immune system, as well as other defenses. All computing systems should be built such that they could survive and do their jobs safely while directly connected to the Internet. Even though we put them behind firewalls, we should understand that it's a jungle out there. Build them to trust only them selves, and then have a backup defense.
A better solution would be to allow adds only in a sidebar ( user selectable width ), only download adds up to a ( user selectable ) percentage of the total page data size ( say 15 percent of the total bandwidth used ), and only download after the content has been downloaded so we don't have to wait while some damned flash downloads to see we need to click on the next page button. I recognize that many sites are supported by adds and I'm willing to give them a percentage of my attention, bandwidth, and browser space, within reason, to support site content.
Why worry about what optional and replaceable or removable software might be doing when the hardware has a massive back door built in right from the factory. The existence of the Intel Management Engine ( and AMD's equivalent ) make worrying about Kaspersky ( or the far worse Win 10 ) the equivalent of bandaging a small scrape on an accident victim's hand while ignoring their sucking chest wound.
Sport used to be something you played just for fun. Now only those competitors whose sponsors have the deepest pockets stand a chance. Sport should not require kids practicing 12 hours a day from age 6 to be competitive, and then in some sports be over the hill by their early 20s. Kids should be allowed to play sports for fun, not to become some short term corporate or national asset. Parents who permit or force their kids into such training regimens should be strung up for abuse. The Olympics haven't been about sport for a hundred years and this is just a another sign of that.
2.4 gigawatts divided by 1.2 million houses results in 2 kilowatts per house. At 120 volts that equals 16.6 amps per house, or about enough for a large toaster oven. Most houses today have 200 amp services, and even in the fifties they were built with 40 amp services. This assumes we only need enough electricity to run a fridge and freezer ( but not both at the same time ) and a few lights. Recharging an e.v. would take weeks. Heating or air conditioning would be right out. They're preparing us for a third world lifestyle.
I'm sympathetic, but good luck trying to make companies pay for the retraining. If you do, what will happen is that existing companies will go out of that business due to the additional costs making them uncompetitive while new start-ups without retraining costs will clean up. Trying to make the government pay will just make it go bankrupt sooner and probably result in employees being retrained for the wrong jobs.
Slashdot Mirror
In reality, Korea has exported its unemployment to the countries that now purchase its automation-produced products, because those countries' workers used to produce the produsts themselves.
Then either all those currently employed would see a pay cut of 50%, or the companies employing them would see their labour costs rise by 100%. Thus it would be even more economic to automate those jobs, or to move the whole enterprise offshore to some country that didn't force companies to double their workforce.
Even if you're one of the lucky few who can really get 100 mbs, how many customers can your ISP support all streaming 100 mbs at the same time before your ISP's peering points get saturated and you get throttled in some manner, or need a higher priced option in order not to be throttled ? Of course, that would only happen after you've already spent the $13k.
And yet Microsoft must have felt that this solution would be more secure than using their own kernel as a base. Think on that.
Maybe system wide dark modes and live tiles are patented or otherwise encumbered such that it's not worth while for Google or Apple to bother duplicating them.
If I had to ( and I did for work ) I'd run Wndoze in a vm on linux ( I used VirtualBox ), but never the other way round.
They just want to make sure no taxable income can slip through their fingers
Well I suppose not being on Facebook and running an ad blocker works, though as a user of Firefox, I wouldn't be a target anyway.
Who searches for Amazon ? Just type in amazon.com or amazon.ca or amazon.(insert your country code here).
How could an AI possibly be ... more sociopathic than government or big business. All three will continue to need the rest of us for hosts.
They're probably too embarrassed to meet. They might get asked about all the global warming we, and Europe, and Russia are having this winter. How would they explain all the media coverage of an arctic heat wave when the data show nothing ? Just more fake news ?
I think that you're correct about LEDs and the switch away from CRTs for TVs and computers. Also demand is what you can pay for. We economized and reduced our frivolous gasoline consumption. We were very wasteful of electricity because it was also cheap. The people who switch to LED lights are also likely to be the ones to turn them, the TV, and other appliances off when not needed. In this environment of stealth inflation and increasing taxation, every little bit adds up and helps.
5G will enable you to stream 4k or 8k to your phone. Do you really need 8k on a six inch screen ? Can you see the difference ? 5G will require micro cells with a tower on every street corner. To service those towers you'll need fiber to every street corner ( although that would help fiber access to the home ). Think about how much it would cost to run fiber to everywhere you now can get a 4G signal, when it's too expensive for telcos to provide most rural areas with real broadband. 4G is overkill for the needs of most phones, namely voice, and messaging, and sufficient for streaming movies in better resolution than you can see on a six inch screen. How many consumers will willingly shell out more $$$ for a phone that is only marginally better than the one they have and then only in the city core where 5G has been rolled out ? Your expensive 5G phone would fall back to 4G when you travel outside the city center. The money required to provide 5G in the most densely populated areas would provide far better service if instead were spent on infilling more 4G towers so the existing bandwidth could be shared among fewer customers.
I don't think we're arguing the same point. I agree with you that fossil energy extraction has inefficiencies and is becoming more inefficient and costly as the easiest and cheapest to produce resources have been extracted. The sum of all those shit-ton costs though is what the cost of renewables is compared to. That the cost of renewables is competitive with the rising cost of fossil energy does not make it cheap in energy-required-to-produce-and-maintain terms. In other words, renewables must incorporate a shit-ton of costs also whether we recognize them or not. The point I'm trying to make is that energy is neither free nor cheap. Most of the cheap, easy to produce fossil energy in now gone. Renewables are unlikely to remain as low-cost to society as they are now as production ramps up ( for example hydro is not without its own problems and most of the good sites have already been developed ) but that's a different subject. There is ultimately a floor to the cost of energy ( barring cold fusion of course ;-) ) and while it may be possible to automate a process, that doesn't make it cost effective to do so. The higher the cost of energy, the more processes will not be worthwhile to automate.
You are confusing the cost of stored energy with the cost to reproduce it. Fossil energy is essentially sunlight that was collected over millions of years. The cost of green energy is essentially the cost of harvesting sunlight today, and most estimates don't include the cost of storing it for future use ( e.g. solar power at night ). The cost of fossil energy is the cost of recovering previously stored sunlight. You're effectively comparing the cost of a trickle charger to the cost of a fully charged battery. There are only so many wind turbines you can put up per acre of land and only so many suitable acres, so the total quantity is limited. In addition, you would have to divert a sizable quantity of fossil energy from other uses to produce solar panels and wind turbines, not to mention converting the grid from a few central points of generation to massively distributed generation. Using some of our stock of fossil energy to build out renewables while we can is prudent, but remember that while renewable energy lasts forever, the devices to capture and store it do not. Wind turbines and solar panels ( and nukes ) have a finite lifetime ( 25 to 30 years ) and then will need to be replaced. There will be far less fossil energy available then, so a lot of renewable energy will have to be diverted at that time further reducing energy availability and increasing the relative cost. End result, while it will always be practical to automate some processes, the cost of energy will set a lower limit to what is cost effective, and we are likely to live in a future with reduced and more expensive energy.
I know I know, the green energy revolution will save us, BUT green energy will never be as plentiful or cheap as fossil energy. As the total energy available to society is reduced, regardless of the fossil renewable mix, we will have to continuously re-prioritize its uses. At some point the energy needed to automate a process will be greater than that required to do it by hand, given that we have to feed all those hands anyway. For example, think of the energy required to build and then run electric hair dryers versus just using the towel you use to dry yourself with anyway. The electric dryer is definitely more convenient and faster, but think of the energy cost.
We walk around all day in an environment filled with various organisms and diseases that are all trying to feed on us. That's why we have skin ( think firewall ), and an immune system, as well as other defenses. All computing systems should be built such that they could survive and do their jobs safely while directly connected to the Internet. Even though we put them behind firewalls, we should understand that it's a jungle out there. Build them to trust only them selves, and then have a backup defense.
A better solution would be to allow adds only in a sidebar ( user selectable width ), only download adds up to a ( user selectable ) percentage of the total page data size ( say 15 percent of the total bandwidth used ), and only download after the content has been downloaded so we don't have to wait while some damned flash downloads to see we need to click on the next page button. I recognize that many sites are supported by adds and I'm willing to give them a percentage of my attention, bandwidth, and browser space, within reason, to support site content.
Why worry about what optional and replaceable or removable software might be doing when the hardware has a massive back door built in right from the factory. The existence of the Intel Management Engine ( and AMD's equivalent ) make worrying about Kaspersky ( or the far worse Win 10 ) the equivalent of bandaging a small scrape on an accident victim's hand while ignoring their sucking chest wound.
Will the chip include the equivalent of Intel's back door Management Engine ?
Sport used to be something you played just for fun. Now only those competitors whose sponsors have the deepest pockets stand a chance. Sport should not require kids practicing 12 hours a day from age 6 to be competitive, and then in some sports be over the hill by their early 20s. Kids should be allowed to play sports for fun, not to become some short term corporate or national asset. Parents who permit or force their kids into such training regimens should be strung up for abuse. The Olympics haven't been about sport for a hundred years and this is just a another sign of that.
It doesn't have to be used in the games themselves. It just has to allow you to enhance your technique to be effective.
2.4 gigawatts divided by 1.2 million houses results in 2 kilowatts per house. At 120 volts that equals 16.6 amps per house, or about enough for a large toaster oven. Most houses today have 200 amp services, and even in the fifties they were built with 40 amp services. This assumes we only need enough electricity to run a fridge and freezer ( but not both at the same time ) and a few lights. Recharging an e.v. would take weeks. Heating or air conditioning would be right out. They're preparing us for a third world lifestyle.
I'm sympathetic, but good luck trying to make companies pay for the retraining. If you do, what will happen is that existing companies will go out of that business due to the additional costs making them uncompetitive while new start-ups without retraining costs will clean up. Trying to make the government pay will just make it go bankrupt sooner and probably result in employees being retrained for the wrong jobs.
They feel they should be the only ones spreading FUD ( fear uncertainty doubt ), to say nothing of the patent trolls they support.