I have tried to explain this to people before too, it seems like there are people out there who think 4WD helps in all situations and just don't get that is makes steering worse, and breaking no better. At least those are the ones who get taken out in the first storm and don't have their vehicles through the rest of winter.
We've had some bad pileups on the local interstates, with people still thinking they can travel 85 on them in nasty weather. Idiot formula is 70 +10+another 5 just because.
The amazing thing is that as soon as this happens, they start playing the blame game. The highway crews are the usual target - even though the damn snowplows can't go 85 mph except in freefall, and for one especially bad pileup they were blaming NOAA!
My rule of thumb is that when it starts snowing, I get off the interstate at the next exit and avoid the parade of idiots.
So, are you saying that the X does poorly offroad? It is AWD, with a low center of gravity, it should do decent in most off road situations? Is it a ground clearance issue?
he X would be great for my wife's use. She's a mostly street, but want's something sure footed in nasty weather. I'm not certain about the offroad capabilities of the X. Ground clearance is important though. I tend to get myself into "situations" if you know what I mean, driving in places with lots of rocks. Although I drive a Patriot, even it is a compromise for me since I also do a lot of road driving. I'd be a CJ type except for that.
Any Android tablet should be able to connect to a Bluetooth keyboard (just like any Android phone). I don't know about iOS but Android is by far the largest number of devices anyway.
Careful! Android lovers all hate bluetooth now that the headphone jack's been removed from the iPhone 7, and the hipsters all say they connect with bluetooth headsets.
It's a possibility.... consider the possibility that they time-shifted a quake which was inevitable and might have happened 80 years later, in 2015 instead of 1933, and with 1000X as much strength in magnitude.
It's also possible that it woke an inactive fault or moved it to a different area.
Placing or removing mass from underground is not unlikely to have any effect. Regardless the concept of making a small 5 something magnitude earthquake as a stress release mechanism is going to be a hard sell.
Reading the article, it doesn't sound like this study is based on anything other than correlation. X happened, and Y happened at around the same place, at around the same time. There's no real description of mechanisms, or proposed experiments that could validate a mechanism, or predictions that could be validated against future events.
I wonder if that's why they say "may have". This is just the stage where the words plausible, and may have will be used a lot.
Correlation is how we start on the road to the causation.
While costs go up over time, the capital delivery equipment is long taken care of. Our local system uses equipment designed and built in the 70's. It's still good stuff and quite capable, but was paid off long ago except for the new developments.
People who want tablets already have them by now. People who don't want them aren't going to buy one.
You're left with a very small market segment.
We went through the same thing with the old feature phones. The sales always level off. At the spoint, there isn't a lot of impetus to buy a new one. Maybe the iPad pro, althhough it's kinda big. But otherwise, why buy a new one?
The smartwatches were a failure, as a lot of us figured they would be. But seems like the only thing they are working on now is battery life. Even those who dislike Apple better hope they come up with something new so the industry can follow. Right now my Samsung Tab is looking just fine for the living room unit for years to come.
what happens when governments don't have a plan to deal with large masses of unemployed
So speaks the collectivist, the man who can think of no way of fixing things that doesn't involve government.
It is the responsibility of the individual, not the government, to find a way to feed, clothe, and shelter himself.
That's nice and simplistic, but ignores what happens when you have a large number of starving people. And it really falls apart with your weak governmant model, because a large number of people facing death cna take out a weak government.
And then the problem starts all over again. the problem of your idea of just letting things happen and getting out of the way is that you can't. Since this is going to happen, you have to have some sort of planning. That might not fit in with your worldview, but after a few revolutions by the starving, you might not like what we end up with.
I would have thought the best tech company in the world (tm) would have no problem copying the many successful designs already on the market. Or maybe the yield that they are talking about is interoperability. Can't have a device accidentally get charged by any old generic charging station.
I dunno. I would prefer to have a plug in charger than a wireless one. Not tor the almost irrelevant earphone jack reason, but because wireless charging is inefficient, and places the second half of the transformer and the power suply inside the phone.
While this isn't the reason for the Samsung catastrophe. That will have an impact on interior space, making for less space for the battery, leading to more shaky schemes to extract more power out of a smaller battery.
As well, I'm expecting that the wireless units will be running at fairly high frequency for transformer size reduction. I'm wondering if a lot of these wireless chargers will make for a lot of RFI. http://www.edn.com/design/comm....
And when were yore's days? The early Clinton (Bill) administration?
I first entered the workforce in the Nixon Administration. Wow, that's old.
But I lack the olde geezer gene, and if systemd gets one's knickers in a knot, well, they might just have it in spades. I've seen a few where it kicks in in their 30's.
Quoth the parent poster "Abstinence only works only if the couple doesn't engage in sex. But they do:"
Ummm.... abstinence, by definition, is NOT doing it. Abstinence EDUCATION, on the other hand, fails in many cases.
It's like being wealthy. Don't want to be poor? Just be wealthy.
My great grandparents were married shortly after puberty, around 13 years old. Today, that will get you on the sexual offenders list. When we started the great social experiment in delayed adulthood, we had some success with some aspects, such as a greater emotional maturity whne finally reaching adulthood - although we are finding out that it is possible to have children stay children and delay emotional maturity as long as you let them, but that's another subject.
But the greatest failure of the delayed adulthood experiment is that where once people were married shortly after puberty, we demand no sexual activity at the very time that sexual urges kick in the hardest. Today, people are expected to stay single until their mid thirties, then lose their virginity. That's 20 years of celibacy. Wheras my Great grandparents were Grandparents by that time.
There are some good reasons to delay sexual activity for a while after puberty hits. That doesn't mean we are going to be successful at it. Sex is a basic drive, almost as powerful as eating.
Of course it doesn't work. You can't tell your kids one thing at home (abstinence) and then have them in school all day telling them it's empowerment to fuck everything that moves.
Non sequitur. Give the citations where they tell people in school that fucking everything that moves is empowerment. Considering that teh US's main form of sex ed is Abstinance only over 15 billion of abstinance only, there seems to be a lie to your statement.
It took you that long? I knew I was straight at 5. And I also had no choice in the matter. That's just the way I am.
Well, yeah. Mostly I was referring to the obvious reactions one has when puberty kicks in. As a little boy I had a great appreciation for the ladies, but had no good idea about the details.
So haven't we learned from the pill that fucking with a body's hormone levels has a certain tendency to lead to bad things and that it gets worse at higher levels?
Is the intention here to hit equality by making men as miserable as women?
One of the oddest things about the idea that the female birth control makes women miserable because hormones! is twofold. The body thinks it is pregnant,(greatly simplified of course) under bcp's and the many menstrual cycles that modern women have is a completely unnatural situation. Once upon a time, adult women were having more children, from puberty to menopause, so didn't have anywhere near the number of real periods modern women have.
"That is why the rate of teen pregnancies are the highest in areas where abstinence is preached the most."
Which is beside the point.
The too long didn't read version of your post is:
Abstinence only education doesn't work, but you don't care.
You and your 1.5 billion you've siphoned from the US guvmint have given the US the highest unwanted teen pregnancy rate in the developed world. And you don't care because somehow, it doesn't matter.
Because we were sold the idea that Abstinence only works. And when it turns out it doesn't, you don't care. Just make up more crap like scabies. Yeah, scabies is a STD now?
Because Abstinence only is a religion based social and personal control mechnanism that attempts to regulate one of the main drivers of survival.
*Posting AC for reasons I don't desire to get into.*
Oopsies - Hi dahat.
I'm sad to channel my abstinence only parents (who were right), but the only effective way of preventing pregnancy is abstinence.
Nope. The problem with abstinance only is that nature hates it, and it tends to fail quickly. If males and females could simply be told "Don't bump uglies!" and they just said "No problem!" and that was it, sure.
Abstinence only works only if the couple doesn't engage in sex. But they do:
tl;dr version the US has spent 1 and a half billion dollars on abstinence only education, and we have the highest teenage pregnancy rate among developed nations - yay! we're number one!
Abstinence only's failure is based of course on it being in complete opposition to nature, and the reproductive drive. No matter how we try, we don't remain abstinent unless sex wasn't a big deal in the first place, or we are socially inept. Most people love to engage in sex.
As well, it warps young people, as they try to find ways around it, with crazy stuff like technical virgins, who've had about every kind of sex but traditional intercourse. I wouldn't be too surprised if a lot of homosexual experimentation has ocurred in otherwise hetero people. If sex was easy to control, religions would be 100 percent successful, which they obviously are not.
Here's a thought. What if, instead of an outright gay gene, being gay is caused by an unintended genetic mutation that is not directly inheritable but just happens? Consider allergies. Dad may not have allergy, mom may not have allergy, but little Tommy just decides one day that eating strawberries will kill him. Is that how choice works?
Good point. As an additional point, I never woke up one morning and though, "Today's the day, Which shall I choose, gay or hetero?" As soon as puberty kicked in, I knew that I was interested in women, and the activities involved with them. I never chose anything.
There is a problem with your logic and it is thus....what are you gonna do with all those billions you no longer need? they aren't gonna quietly go commit suicide so you can live your fat spoiled life ya know.
And what are they doing now? My suspicion is that we will end up reducing population in one of two ways. Gradually or in a couple days. We don't need so many people in the world, indeed that is a large source of our problems.
While we are discussing logic, when we are completely capable of automating alomst all jobs, we are to refuse to automate them because "people must work"? The elimination of jobs has taken place over hundreds of years now, and largely because of technology. You want a stop to it. Tell me where we should have stopped, and defend your logic as to why we shouldn't have stopped at subsistance farming. just about everyone had a job then. The problem with deciding exactly "when" is the right time is a real troublesome thing. When is your logical stopping point?
The problem of course, is it would take a worldwide stopping, as if we went back to even 1940's farming methods, we'd be like the new Amish, who somehow knew that God wanted technology to stop at 1840 levels, and even now are discoveing that strict adherence is getting more and more difficult.
The vast majority of the population cannot be trained to be rocket scientists and with all these technologies frankly we wouldn't need them if they could, so what EXACTLY are you gonna do with them all?
The age old question. There are going to be a lot of people in the future who will never work in the fashion we do now. A lot of minds are working on this now.
A little bit of this is occuring as we speak, with 50+ year old unskilled laborers being laid off form jobs that will never come back. They are stuck. While they once had a job that could pay them a liveable wage, they do not have the skill set to do anything that will pay them that much now. If they uproot themselves to move to another city, they are in competition with hundreds of others to get a minimum wage job at McDonalds or Walmart. But there isn't enough of those positions open. They will never work again. And that is working its way up the ladder.
It's happening whether you like it or not, whether I like it or not.
Its a revolution. But then so many of the other revolutions in technology we have had have panned out pretty well The industrial revolution after a time allowed many of us to move into the middle class. The farming revolution provided food for more people with much less labor. I suspect that humanity may end up in a new age where the old paradigm of work or die disappears. The new paradigm is very difficult to grasp. I don't know how it will turn out, because I figure its either that, or us gleefully making ourselves go extinct. I'm about 50 - 50 but leaning toward the latter at the moment.
Physical labor was optimized, not automated. The former has happened. The latter has never happened. The two are mistakenly equated so much it's laughable.
I have no idea what you are trying to say. If you are trying to say that labor has been optimized and ther ehas never been a fundamental change in the labor, that's simply wrong. Here is a Ford plan in the 1930's http://theoldmotor.com/?p=1546...
We can play where's Waldo with the people - I count two.
All you really said is the "I've got mine screw you" slogan, oblivious to how close you are to the edge.
That's pretty cryptic. I adapted, and thrived. What I was educated to do I only did a few times in my career. I went back to further my education when needed as the job skillset changed. Screw no one, but if you insist on staying in the same place your entire life, and insist on having the same job doing th esame thing your entire life, a pretty good case can be made that you are screwing yourself.
Fortunately "close" is relative; yes, we're inches away, your job is "exclusive" by the skin of its teeth, but it'll take generations to properly tick the last inch.
Bizarre. My whole post was that times change, and you adapt. Not a thing exclusive about that.
Yes, We'll be fine. You'll die thinking you're well off, even your kids probably will. It's the 10 billion ahead trying to be simultaneous roborepairmen that are fucked.
There is a paradigm that proves very difficult to move away from, and that's the concept of work, and the concept of that work being provided by someone else. TRying to stop progress is like pissing against the tide. Even if you pursuade your country that your country must continue to say use only hand abor for mining - and never forget that all mininig used to be done by hand labor, then pack animals, then conveyor belts and other devices that put people out of work.
Now Anonymous Coward - your decision. Should the automation have been stopped when miners climbed down ladders and teams of people hauled the rock out by hand? Or when pack animals hauled it, or when converyors and lifts came into use, Should w euse the hammer and tap method of drilling holes in the rock to place teh explosive charges, Or should w use the newer Jackleg drill. In fact, should we revert tohundreds of men with pickaxes - lots of employment opportunities there.
So many decisions, and each element of progress opposed by you and your ilk.
In America, if you own the land, you own the mineral resources under it. Many other countries nationalize mineral resources. Nearly all those countries are poorer and less productive than America, especially in the mining sector.
Many people have found out that that is not true. Locally, a company that owned the mineral rights proved that they have the right to extract the limestone under other people's property. Quite the court battle. Mineral rights can be sold separately. This also happens a lot with natural gas. The company buys the land, and then sells it to people while retaining the mineral rights of the land underneath the surface.
Slashdot Mirror
It's entrepreneurship because you get to decide when, where, and how much you work.
Do you have a newsletter? Your ideas are intriguing....
His newsletter is printed in a retro Roman-themed format. It's a scroll, available for your perusal in all good public restrooms....
My guess he is one of the No Government and everyone is honest people, where if only there are no rules, everyone will follow the rules.
Certainly his definition of entrepreneur includes all of us.
I have tried to explain this to people before too, it seems like there are people out there who think 4WD helps in all situations and just don't get that is makes steering worse, and breaking no better. At least those are the ones who get taken out in the first storm and don't have their vehicles through the rest of winter.
We've had some bad pileups on the local interstates, with people still thinking they can travel 85 on them in nasty weather. Idiot formula is 70 +10+another 5 just because.
The amazing thing is that as soon as this happens, they start playing the blame game. The highway crews are the usual target - even though the damn snowplows can't go 85 mph except in freefall, and for one especially bad pileup they were blaming NOAA!
My rule of thumb is that when it starts snowing, I get off the interstate at the next exit and avoid the parade of idiots.
So, are you saying that the X does poorly offroad? It is AWD, with a low center of gravity, it should do decent in most off road situations? Is it a ground clearance issue?
he X would be great for my wife's use. She's a mostly street, but want's something sure footed in nasty weather. I'm not certain about the offroad capabilities of the X. Ground clearance is important though. I tend to get myself into "situations" if you know what I mean, driving in places with lots of rocks. Although I drive a Patriot, even it is a compromise for me since I also do a lot of road driving. I'd be a CJ type except for that.
Any Android tablet should be able to connect to a Bluetooth keyboard (just like any Android phone). I don't know about iOS but Android is by far the largest number of devices anyway.
Careful! Android lovers all hate bluetooth now that the headphone jack's been removed from the iPhone 7, and the hipsters all say they connect with bluetooth headsets.
It's entrepreneurship because you get to decide when, where, and how much you work.
Do you have a newsletter? Your ideas are intriguing....
It's a possibility.... consider the possibility that they time-shifted a quake which was inevitable and might have happened 80 years later, in 2015 instead of 1933, and with 1000X as much strength in magnitude.
It's also possible that it woke an inactive fault or moved it to a different area.
Placing or removing mass from underground is not unlikely to have any effect. Regardless the concept of making a small 5 something magnitude earthquake as a stress release mechanism is going to be a hard sell.
Reading the article, it doesn't sound like this study is based on anything other than correlation. X happened, and Y happened at around the same place, at around the same time. There's no real description of mechanisms, or proposed experiments that could validate a mechanism, or predictions that could be validated against future events.
I wonder if that's why they say "may have". This is just the stage where the words plausible, and may have will be used a lot.
Correlation is how we start on the road to the causation.
More like the army of accountants need paid.
Is this surprising?
People who want tablets already have them by now. People who don't want them aren't going to buy one.
You're left with a very small market segment.
We went through the same thing with the old feature phones. The sales always level off. At the spoint, there isn't a lot of impetus to buy a new one. Maybe the iPad pro, althhough it's kinda big. But otherwise, why buy a new one?
The smartwatches were a failure, as a lot of us figured they would be. But seems like the only thing they are working on now is battery life. Even those who dislike Apple better hope they come up with something new so the industry can follow. Right now my Samsung Tab is looking just fine for the living room unit for years to come.
So speaks the collectivist, the man who can think of no way of fixing things that doesn't involve government.
It is the responsibility of the individual, not the government, to find a way to feed, clothe, and shelter himself.
That's nice and simplistic, but ignores what happens when you have a large number of starving people. And it really falls apart with your weak governmant model, because a large number of people facing death cna take out a weak government.
And then the problem starts all over again. the problem of your idea of just letting things happen and getting out of the way is that you can't. Since this is going to happen, you have to have some sort of planning. That might not fit in with your worldview, but after a few revolutions by the starving, you might not like what we end up with.
I would have thought the best tech company in the world (tm) would have no problem copying the many successful designs already on the market. Or maybe the yield that they are talking about is interoperability. Can't have a device accidentally get charged by any old generic charging station.
I dunno. I would prefer to have a plug in charger than a wireless one. Not tor the almost irrelevant earphone jack reason, but because wireless charging is inefficient, and places the second half of the transformer and the power suply inside the phone.
While this isn't the reason for the Samsung catastrophe. That will have an impact on interior space, making for less space for the battery, leading to more shaky schemes to extract more power out of a smaller battery.
As well, I'm expecting that the wireless units will be running at fairly high frequency for transformer size reduction. I'm wondering if a lot of these wireless chargers will make for a lot of RFI. http://www.edn.com/design/comm....
And when were yore's days? The early Clinton (Bill) administration?
I first entered the workforce in the Nixon Administration. Wow, that's old.
But I lack the olde geezer gene, and if systemd gets one's knickers in a knot, well, they might just have it in spades. I've seen a few where it kicks in in their 30's.
Quoth the parent poster "Abstinence only works only if the couple doesn't engage in sex. But they do:"
Ummm.... abstinence, by definition, is NOT doing it. Abstinence EDUCATION, on the other hand, fails in many cases.
It's like being wealthy. Don't want to be poor? Just be wealthy.
My great grandparents were married shortly after puberty, around 13 years old. Today, that will get you on the sexual offenders list. When we started the great social experiment in delayed adulthood, we had some success with some aspects, such as a greater emotional maturity whne finally reaching adulthood - although we are finding out that it is possible to have children stay children and delay emotional maturity as long as you let them, but that's another subject.
But the greatest failure of the delayed adulthood experiment is that where once people were married shortly after puberty, we demand no sexual activity at the very time that sexual urges kick in the hardest. Today, people are expected to stay single until their mid thirties, then lose their virginity. That's 20 years of celibacy. Wheras my Great grandparents were Grandparents by that time.
There are some good reasons to delay sexual activity for a while after puberty hits. That doesn't mean we are going to be successful at it. Sex is a basic drive, almost as powerful as eating.
Of course it doesn't work. You can't tell your kids one thing at home (abstinence) and then have them in school all day telling them it's empowerment to fuck everything that moves.
Non sequitur. Give the citations where they tell people in school that fucking everything that moves is empowerment. Considering that teh US's main form of sex ed is Abstinance only over 15 billion of abstinance only, there seems to be a lie to your statement.
It took you that long? I knew I was straight at 5. And I also had no choice in the matter. That's just the way I am.
Well, yeah. Mostly I was referring to the obvious reactions one has when puberty kicks in. As a little boy I had a great appreciation for the ladies, but had no good idea about the details.
So haven't we learned from the pill that fucking with a body's hormone levels has a certain tendency to lead to bad things and that it gets worse at higher levels?
Is the intention here to hit equality by making men as miserable as women?
One of the oddest things about the idea that the female birth control makes women miserable because hormones! is twofold. The body thinks it is pregnant,(greatly simplified of course) under bcp's and the many menstrual cycles that modern women have is a completely unnatural situation. Once upon a time, adult women were having more children, from puberty to menopause, so didn't have anywhere near the number of real periods modern women have.
Well that is way more effective than what you get with a condom when you factor in how it cannot fall off or rip during use,
Well, you aren't supposed to turn them inside out and re-use them for round two you know.
"That is why the rate of teen pregnancies are the highest in areas where abstinence is preached the most."
Which is beside the point.
The too long didn't read version of your post is:
Abstinence only education doesn't work, but you don't care.
You and your 1.5 billion you've siphoned from the US guvmint have given the US the highest unwanted teen pregnancy rate in the developed world. And you don't care because somehow, it doesn't matter.
Because we were sold the idea that Abstinence only works. And when it turns out it doesn't, you don't care. Just make up more crap like scabies. Yeah, scabies is a STD now?
Because Abstinence only is a religion based social and personal control mechnanism that attempts to regulate one of the main drivers of survival.
Who knows, there may have been a few virgins in the bunch. Maybe we should start a religion!
This should be modded up, if only for these two lines!
*Posting AC for reasons I don't desire to get into.*
Oopsies - Hi dahat.
I'm sad to channel my abstinence only parents (who were right), but the only effective way of preventing pregnancy is abstinence.
Nope. The problem with abstinance only is that nature hates it, and it tends to fail quickly. If males and females could simply be told "Don't bump uglies!" and they just said "No problem!" and that was it, sure.
Abstinence only works only if the couple doesn't engage in sex. But they do:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
http://www.siecus.org/index.cf...
tl;dr version the US has spent 1 and a half billion dollars on abstinence only education, and we have the highest teenage pregnancy rate among developed nations - yay! we're number one!
Abstinence only's failure is based of course on it being in complete opposition to nature, and the reproductive drive. No matter how we try, we don't remain abstinent unless sex wasn't a big deal in the first place, or we are socially inept. Most people love to engage in sex.
As well, it warps young people, as they try to find ways around it, with crazy stuff like technical virgins, who've had about every kind of sex but traditional intercourse. I wouldn't be too surprised if a lot of homosexual experimentation has ocurred in otherwise hetero people. If sex was easy to control, religions would be 100 percent successful, which they obviously are not.
Here's a thought. What if, instead of an outright gay gene, being gay is caused by an unintended genetic mutation that is not directly inheritable but just happens? Consider allergies. Dad may not have allergy, mom may not have allergy, but little Tommy just decides one day that eating strawberries will kill him. Is that how choice works?
Good point. As an additional point, I never woke up one morning and though, "Today's the day, Which shall I choose, gay or hetero?" As soon as puberty kicked in, I knew that I was interested in women, and the activities involved with them. I never chose anything.
There is a problem with your logic and it is thus....what are you gonna do with all those billions you no longer need? they aren't gonna quietly go commit suicide so you can live your fat spoiled life ya know.
And what are they doing now? My suspicion is that we will end up reducing population in one of two ways. Gradually or in a couple days. We don't need so many people in the world, indeed that is a large source of our problems.
While we are discussing logic, when we are completely capable of automating alomst all jobs, we are to refuse to automate them because "people must work"? The elimination of jobs has taken place over hundreds of years now, and largely because of technology. You want a stop to it. Tell me where we should have stopped, and defend your logic as to why we shouldn't have stopped at subsistance farming. just about everyone had a job then. The problem with deciding exactly "when" is the right time is a real troublesome thing. When is your logical stopping point?
The problem of course, is it would take a worldwide stopping, as if we went back to even 1940's farming methods, we'd be like the new Amish, who somehow knew that God wanted technology to stop at 1840 levels, and even now are discoveing that strict adherence is getting more and more difficult.
The vast majority of the population cannot be trained to be rocket scientists and with all these technologies frankly we wouldn't need them if they could, so what EXACTLY are you gonna do with them all?
The age old question. There are going to be a lot of people in the future who will never work in the fashion we do now. A lot of minds are working on this now.
A little bit of this is occuring as we speak, with 50+ year old unskilled laborers being laid off form jobs that will never come back. They are stuck. While they once had a job that could pay them a liveable wage, they do not have the skill set to do anything that will pay them that much now. If they uproot themselves to move to another city, they are in competition with hundreds of others to get a minimum wage job at McDonalds or Walmart. But there isn't enough of those positions open. They will never work again. And that is working its way up the ladder.
It's happening whether you like it or not, whether I like it or not.
Its a revolution. But then so many of the other revolutions in technology we have had have panned out pretty well The industrial revolution after a time allowed many of us to move into the middle class. The farming revolution provided food for more people with much less labor. I suspect that humanity may end up in a new age where the old paradigm of work or die disappears. The new paradigm is very difficult to grasp. I don't know how it will turn out, because I figure its either that, or us gleefully making ourselves go extinct. I'm about 50 - 50 but leaning toward the latter at the moment.
Are you having a stroke?
of genius - yes indeedy!
Physical labor was optimized, not automated. The former has happened. The latter has never happened. The two are mistakenly equated so much it's laughable.
I have no idea what you are trying to say. If you are trying to say that labor has been optimized and ther ehas never been a fundamental change in the labor, that's simply wrong. Here is a Ford plan in the 1930's http://theoldmotor.com/?p=1546...
Here is a modern assembly line https://telecotowalk.wordpress...
We can play where's Waldo with the people - I count two.
All you really said is the "I've got mine screw you" slogan, oblivious to how close you are to the edge.
That's pretty cryptic. I adapted, and thrived. What I was educated to do I only did a few times in my career. I went back to further my education when needed as the job skillset changed. Screw no one, but if you insist on staying in the same place your entire life, and insist on having the same job doing th esame thing your entire life, a pretty good case can be made that you are screwing yourself.
Fortunately "close" is relative; yes, we're inches away, your job is "exclusive" by the skin of its teeth, but it'll take generations to properly tick the last inch.
Bizarre. My whole post was that times change, and you adapt. Not a thing exclusive about that.
Yes, We'll be fine. You'll die thinking you're well off, even your kids probably will. It's the 10 billion ahead trying to be simultaneous roborepairmen that are fucked.
There is a paradigm that proves very difficult to move away from, and that's the concept of work, and the concept of that work being provided by someone else. TRying to stop progress is like pissing against the tide. Even if you pursuade your country that your country must continue to say use only hand abor for mining - and never forget that all mininig used to be done by hand labor, then pack animals, then conveyor belts and other devices that put people out of work.
Now Anonymous Coward - your decision. Should the automation have been stopped when miners climbed down ladders and teams of people hauled the rock out by hand? Or when pack animals hauled it, or when converyors and lifts came into use, Should w euse the hammer and tap method of drilling holes in the rock to place teh explosive charges, Or should w use the newer Jackleg drill. In fact, should we revert tohundreds of men with pickaxes - lots of employment opportunities there.
So many decisions, and each element of progress opposed by you and your ilk.
In America, if you own the land, you own the mineral resources under it. Many other countries nationalize mineral resources. Nearly all those countries are poorer and less productive than America, especially in the mining sector.
Many people have found out that that is not true. Locally, a company that owned the mineral rights proved that they have the right to extract the limestone under other people's property. Quite the court battle. Mineral rights can be sold separately. This also happens a lot with natural gas. The company buys the land, and then sells it to people while retaining the mineral rights of the land underneath the surface.