No. Its the cost of having people scour the systems for any damage he causes, compare the data against backups to chance for changes, deletion and any programs he left behind, for tracking him. This isn't One computer, it's a lot of computers on a lot of systems, and it costs money to have people do that work. As well as possible legal bills.
the people builI know, but trust me it will be worth it.I like how you think the builder and maintainers won't be robots.
" people still have to build and service the robots" then number of people that need to do that has always been lower then the people displaced, and that's not counting secondary markets.
I would worry. Becasue while people who write code may be towards the end of the list of jobs replaced, million will be out of work first. When unemployment its 20% globally, we will have some serious issues.
"The idea that technology cannot cause unemployment has long been taken as a simple fact of economics" By who? it has clearly eroded employment. The only people saying that where corporate factory owners. If technology produced more jobs then it replaced, then we really wouldn't need it.
Lets loko at some clasicc examples. Garment industry. The first automated garment company produced for more product with fewer people need per hour, including the people keeping the automation system running. And this was pre-computer. The number of people it took to build and maintain robotic auto systems has always been for lower then the people it replaces.
I right reports that can be generated in seconds that would have required 5 people 3 months to do.
I was on a team of 50 people that wrote some very sophisticated loan automation software that replaced over 1000 positions over a period of 2 years.
This is happening all over the world. What do you think will happen when robot appear to reliable do menial tasks? when fastfood places start replacing employees with 'robots'? Million will be out of work. Do you think it will take millions to build robots?
And when automated system write software? when robots repair other robots?
The real question is: How wisely are we willing to mvoe economically?
If you just replace people and leave then on there own in an environment where most jobs can be done better by machines, you will have riots, starvation, war. So what do you do? ONly let people own one robot and chose to work themselves, or hire out the robot? Do you have the government own the robots and pay people a monthly stipend*? Tax the work robots do, and divy that up among all the people?
Now, the price will come down,and efficiency will go up dramatically. And we will most likely have the technology to replace the people in these systems that would screw them up.
And eventually computers and robots will be able to make what you want on demand, including exotic features. Could we become like the people in Wally?
The only thing of value will be land. So do we pay people with land?
*yes communism, but with out the pesky problem that a person will do less work for the same pay. I argue this is the only way communism can thrive without having to use force.
Lactose persistence is a recent evolutionary development. So most people eating this cheese had a bad reaction to it... unless it was invented as a type of baby food? hmmm.
Another note, the vast majority of adult human being can not digest cheese, or diary.
That's true in any field, and it will be dealt with. That said, you aren't buying a product, you are inviting in a project and if the investment works, you get a product.
Why so Ser^H^H^H Surprised? I've gotten a couple, and they all shipped when they said they would. And naysayer without any rational argument are stupid negative twits.
Yes, more avenue for business to get cash is good.
Nice that you called your wife's opinion on shows worthless, and telling her she doesn't know how to mange her time 'properly'.
And there is a lot worth watching..just not for you. I could make a list of really well made and written shows, but you're a dipshit hipster who derives self worth from being 'opposite' of the people around you. I'm sure that if the vast majority of people stopped watching TV, a day later you would be posting about who people are an idiot for not watching the great shows on TV.
There are more people in the US then just you and your friends. Yes, let out corporate overlords do what ever they want cause you can just do more work to get around it. You are a selfish, myopic, and ignorant.
Did you overlook the part where a lot of people wanted the government to do this?
Incorrect. "Only applies to over-the-air broadcasters, no cable channels" Broadcast television stations and pay TV providers were given until this date to be in full compliance. http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/loud-commercials
"Allows for a one year exemption for anyone requesting." If they can show that it is a financial hardship to do it now.
"Does not apply to any commercials put in by your cable or satellite provider"
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/loud-commercials " Specifically, the CALM Act directs the Commission to establish rules that require TV stations, cable operators, satellite TV providers or other multichannel video program distributors (MVPDs) to apply the Advanced Television Systems Committee's (ATSC) A/85 Recommended Practice ("ATSC A/85 RP") to commercial advertisements they transmit to viewers."
You are just another asshole who looks to complain and thinks an opinion based on ignorance is just as justified as actual facts.
Slashdot Mirror
You're comparing total cost at Fukushima to insurance cover for external damages. Not the same thing, stop it.
Becasue every time we gets ahead, or have a savings, or a pool of money the republican flip the fuck out and want to get rid of it.
Bureaucracy do complex things well, that's why it was invented.
Maybe he will be abducted~
How do you know that? hmm?
No. Its the cost of having people scour the systems for any damage he causes, compare the data against backups to chance for changes, deletion and any programs he left behind, for tracking him.
This isn't One computer, it's a lot of computers on a lot of systems, and it costs money to have people do that work.
As well as possible legal bills.
Yes, they should have throat chopped her, that would have been better.
"when we were told that tazers will only be used as a non-lethal alternative "
were we?
"Yes, the "Start Trek" switch."
not sure if misspelling or great pun.
"while philosophy changes by the generation."
not anymore. It's changing much faster.
Of course that's a complete fallacy and further to tell people of you ignorance on the topic of social security.
the people builI know, but trust me it will be worth it.I like how you think the builder and maintainers won't be robots.
" people still have to build and service the robots"
then number of people that need to do that has always been lower then the people displaced, and that's not counting secondary markets.
and again, robots will do that eventually.
I'm not sure why you think China won't automate.
"The high priests of the world will be roboticists."
who will be robotic.
I would worry. Becasue while people who write code may be towards the end of the list of jobs replaced, million will be out of work first. When unemployment its 20% globally, we will have some serious issues.
"The idea that technology cannot cause unemployment has long been taken as a simple fact of economics"
By who? it has clearly eroded employment. The only people saying that where corporate factory owners.
If technology produced more jobs then it replaced, then we really wouldn't need it.
Lets loko at some clasicc examples.
Garment industry. The first automated garment company produced for more product with fewer people need per hour, including the people keeping the automation system running. And this was pre-computer.
The number of people it took to build and maintain robotic auto systems has always been for lower then the people it replaces.
I right reports that can be generated in seconds that would have required 5 people 3 months to do.
I was on a team of 50 people that wrote some very sophisticated loan automation software that replaced over 1000 positions over a period of 2 years.
This is happening all over the world. What do you think will happen when robot appear to reliable do menial tasks? when fastfood places start replacing employees with 'robots'? Million will be out of work. Do you think it will take millions to build robots?
And when automated system write software? when robots repair other robots?
The real question is: How wisely are we willing to mvoe economically?
If you just replace people and leave then on there own in an environment where most jobs can be done better by machines, you will have riots, starvation, war. So what do you do? ONly let people own one robot and chose to work themselves, or hire out the robot? Do you have the government own the robots and pay people a monthly stipend*? Tax the work robots do, and divy that up among all the people?
Now, the price will come down,and efficiency will go up dramatically. And we will most likely have the technology to replace the people in these systems that would screw them up.
And eventually computers and robots will be able to make what you want on demand, including exotic features.
Could we become like the people in Wally?
The only thing of value will be land. So do we pay people with land?
*yes communism, but with out the pesky problem that a person will do less work for the same pay. I argue this is the only way communism can thrive without having to use force.
You are aware most things under that list you link to are incorrect, or not logical comparisons, right?
Of course you don't. thinking about them would go against your hate.
SO humans before those were invented where human?
Lactose persistence is a recent evolutionary development. So most people eating this cheese had a bad reaction to it... unless it was invented as a type of baby food? hmmm.
Another note, the vast majority of adult human being can not digest cheese, or diary.
No, it is not primitive cheese. where do you people get this stuff? oh right, out your ass.
Why? It's a specific type of bowl that has a single purpose. Unless you have evidence of an older one?
". it's not infected with bacteria or yeast."
wha? that's not what spoiled means.
Spoiled: To become unfit for use or consumption,
No, it isn't spoiled milk.. or spoiled grain.
No, there is very little cheese. Not a lot of Diary in the history of China, that's why 95% are lactose intolerant.
That's true in any field, and it will be dealt with.
That said, you aren't buying a product, you are inviting in a project and if the investment works, you get a product.
It's Important people remember that.
Why so Ser^H^H^H Surprised?
I've gotten a couple, and they all shipped when they said they would.
And naysayer without any rational argument are stupid negative twits.
Yes, more avenue for business to get cash is good.
Nice that you called your wife's opinion on shows worthless, and telling her she doesn't know how to mange her time 'properly'.
And there is a lot worth watching..just not for you.
I could make a list of really well made and written shows, but you're a dipshit hipster who derives self worth from being 'opposite' of the people around you.
I'm sure that if the vast majority of people stopped watching TV, a day later you would be posting about who people are an idiot for not watching the great shows on TV.
There are more people in the US then just you and your friends.
Yes, let out corporate overlords do what ever they want cause you can just do more work to get around it.
You are a selfish, myopic, and ignorant.
Did you overlook the part where a lot of people wanted the government to do this?
Incorrect.
"Only applies to over-the-air broadcasters, no cable channels"
Broadcast television stations and pay TV providers were given until this date to be in full compliance.
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/loud-commercials
"Allows for a one year exemption for anyone requesting."
If they can show that it is a financial hardship to do it now.
"Does not apply to any commercials put in by your cable or satellite provider"
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/loud-commercials
" Specifically, the CALM Act directs the Commission to establish rules that require TV stations, cable operators, satellite TV providers or other multichannel video program distributors (MVPDs) to apply the Advanced Television Systems Committee's (ATSC) A/85 Recommended Practice ("ATSC A/85 RP") to commercial advertisements they transmit to viewers."
You are just another asshole who looks to complain and thinks an opinion based on ignorance is just as justified as actual facts.