Then you should look at more recent history, because the trends say something else.
Each time we get new technology, we lose some jobs in the process. Yes, we get others, but not to the same degree.
A lot of qualified people can't find a decent job today, right now. Oh sure, McDonalds is always hiring, but that isn't a replacement for what was lost, and the day is soon coming when even that option is gone.
I think you're completely wrong, totally 100% wrong...
The future is large robotic factories making stuff with almost no human involvement. That stuff will then get to us also by robots...
There is coming a time when there is nothing for all the humans to do. We could perhaps create "make work", but even that will be a challenge for anything remotely like capitalism.
We could go back and fourth, but in the end, the future will tell the truth.
If the kids are still hungry, we have issues beyond what just giving them money that's 'dedicated' to food. Hell, converting restricted resources(like WIC warrants) to fungible(exchangable) ones already happens, and it's so bad in some areas that schools have to serve breakfast, lunch, and dinner to the kids or they don't eat. I have issues with that.
So do I, it is child abuse as far as I'm concerned and it is why we have Child Protective Services.
I don't like CPS sometimes, I think they make mistakes and do the wrong thing sometimes...
But not all the time, sometimes they save children's lives from people who are not fit parents...
If there are children who are not eating because the parents are idiots, then it is time to take those kids away...
But then people cry "Why SHOULD bill gates get it? He's a millionairre?"
Those people are morons and shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Sad to say, I'm no longer convinced that the "one person, one vote" system works. Lots of people are complete idiots, we would probably be better off with a completely random person than who idiots elect.
Just look at Bush and Obama, both complete idiots themselves.
A friend of mine peaked in his early twenties. He was doing highly skilled technical work on embedded electronics. They moved the job and he couldn't bicycle or bus-ride to get there anymore. He worked computer repair for a depot place, but they closed. He ended up at a computer big-box store that is now closed. He followed coworkers from that big-box store into retail. He eventually had supervisors that didn't like him and would only give him ten hours a week to try to get him to quit, but he wouldn't quit to go anywhere else. Eventually they were fired and the new supervisors gave him full-time again, but shlepping retail packages to restock store shelves has taken its toll on him and it's exceedingly unlikely that anyone else would hire him.
He made a mistake really early on...
When I was 19 years old, I went out looking for a wonderful employee... and hired myself...
Best decision I ever made... In one form or another, I've owned my own business for more than 20 years. I'm financially secure, my home is more than 50% paid off, I have savings and money in the bank, and I can't be fired or laid off...
Why in the world people want to work for others is beyond me, but there must be some appeal in it somewhere. I guess I should be glad most people want a job, it has allowed me to hire hundreds of people over the years, they have been kind enough to give me their time in return for making me lots of money.
If that sounds nuts, it is, but that is how it works. It isn't new either, it worked that way 500 years ago as well, nothing much has changed there.
These sorts of arguments always are arguments from ignorance. The form, "I can't think of what they will do, therefore they won't find jobs!" No, the answer is you need to think harder.
Or, perhaps at some point, there won't be enough new jobs...
There is no universal law that says, "new jobs must be found, thus they will be".
Millions of people drive vehicles for a living, that profession doesn't have a future in it. Some of them will of course find new things to do, but not all of them.
Job creation the past 10 years has been terrible. While the economy recovers, people aren't finding new work at the same pace.
Those are just the few businesses I can think of off the top of my head. Good entrepreneurs are going to come up with many more. They will need people to implement and work out the procedures which may eventually be automated.
Yes, they will need people... but not nearly as many as are being replaced...
There is an end game here, one where you no longer need millions of people...
It isn't tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow, but that day is coming...
I own guns, but I'm the first one to say that a AR is a horrible weapon for home invasion... The rounds WAY over penetrate and you're responsible for the rounds, no matter why you're shooting...
A shotgun with birdshot is the only weapon I'd use in my home. Even a.45 is too much risk of over-penetration.
While that is all true, the margin in the larger versions of Apple products is so large it is noticeable to your average consumer who is more aware than ever what flash costs.
While you're correct about making profits and supply and demand, the issue gets muddy when you become the size of a company like Apple.
Apple has risks and image concerns that small companies don't have. Everything they do makes the front page, any midsteps also make the front page.
A comparison would be the min wage protests against companies like McDonalds. You don't see those protests on the news against Jack in the Box, Wataburger, or Wendy's, now do you?
When you're the biggest fish in the sea, the rules just aren't the same.
The point of the article is that Apple would be well to remember this, that while profit is important, so is image, customer satisfaction, etc. Apple has so much money that doing something "right by people" once in awhile can pay large dividends.
It builds good will that can be cashed in later if needed.
That makes sense, considering that most iPhones are 16GB in size...
So the people complaining about it, really know nothing.
So, you really know nothing, since it would be impossible for the usage on a 16GB iPhone to be much more than about 12GB (due to not all 16GB being usable).
App development is crucial to the iPhone (and any other smartphone out there), and many developers don't like to do the extra work to keep their application sizes sane. However, as long as the base model is 16Gb, app developers need to keep this in mind when developing their apps.
That would be nice, if it worked like that... but already way too many apps are getting big.
Sure, Facebook isn't too big and others are reasonable, but how big can the Facebook app really get?
Try downloading Real Racing 3 or the Disney Infinity 2.0 app and tell me about app sizes. As I look at my kid's iPad, there are over 10 apps that are over 1GB in size each.
Ok, that is an iPad, not an iPhone, but same thing more or less.
You should do some math on the energy required to move six people, all the stuff they need to live for a year, from Earth to Mars in 3 months.
Then you should figure out the size of the chemical rocket you'll need to do that. Just for fun, I'll let you cut the final number in half.
It will still be a stupidly massive huge number that isn't reasonable.
Then you should do the same math for a trip to Jupiter's moons, this time taking 6 months. This time I'll be really nice and let you cut the number down to 25%, assuming large advances in chemical rockets.
Same stupid big number.
We aren't going anywhere using chemical rockets, the size gets to unreasonable numbers amazingly quickly.
except energy is one of the reasons for the huge labor costs.
If you didn't require an expendable vehicle the size of Saturn V just to put 2 people on the moon for a day, then that cost could be much lower.
Materials, labor, energy, all cost something. A small, efficient, reusable spacecraft that could lift objects for a fraction of the effort currently expended is what is needed.
Nuclear, or even anti-matter/matter, engines are still propellant based, and Orion from the 50s was and is a viable system.
Perhaps, or perhaps not... NASA's Ion Drive was a nice step forward. Not useful for leaving Earth's Gravity Well, but a nice advance for moving between planets using less mass for a given unit of acceleration...
The reality is that not enough work has been done to develop them.
Imagine for a min if the best jet engines we had were the ones used in the Gloster Meteor and the ME-262, and someone suggested building a 747 using jet power. You'd think they were nuts. And you'd be right, if that was the limit of your vision.
But jet engines developed rapidly from the 40's, to the 50's and beyond, so that today we have amazingly reliable, fuel efficient, powerful engines that would have been pure fantasy in 1944.
So you have to be willing to imagine a future when they are far, far better than today. Because chemical rockets aren't it.
Yep, you're right... Except directly around the reactor itself, most of that area is now at fairly safe levels.
The area that is "unsafe" continues to shrink every year. While the reactor core itself will remain unsafe for a long time, the actual amount of land lost is pretty minor.
And of course they broke every safety rule in the book when they blew up the reactor.
First, we shouldn't be building such unsafe designs in the first place and we should be taking the existing ones out of service.
Second, we should be building much safer designs, after all the technology has moved on a lot in 30 years. It would move on even more if we bothered to get over our "OMG the nuclears" fears.
And finally, if we limit ourselves to solar, wind, and hydro power (since coal, oil, and natural gas are not long term options), then we aren't going anywhere and are doomed long term as a species.
There's a little place in Ukraine which will be inhabitable in another 10,000 years or so, and Japan is still dealing with the fallout.
I can only assume you mean Chernobyl.
First, that was an example of extreme human stupidity, and while we can't promise humans won't be stupid again, it is worth noting that a few bad events compared to the huge number of good ones shouldn't cause us to all give up.
It is also worth noting that the bulk of the area around Chernobyl is now safe to move back to. This idea that the whole area is unsafe for 10,000 years is just silly.
We put 12 people on the moon by brute forcing it with a huge sum of money and a massive rocket that was never really safe to begin with, all to have a few hours to walk around up there.
It worked, and it is just amazing how it all happened, but it wasn't a sustainable future which is why the last three missions were canceled.
It is simply not reasonable to launch Saturn V rockets to put 2 people on the moon for a day. The cost/return ratio is, pardon the pun, out of this world.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Then you should look at more recent history, because the trends say something else.
Each time we get new technology, we lose some jobs in the process. Yes, we get others, but not to the same degree.
A lot of qualified people can't find a decent job today, right now. Oh sure, McDonalds is always hiring, but that isn't a replacement for what was lost, and the day is soon coming when even that option is gone.
The irony is that I'd say the same to you...
I think you're completely wrong, totally 100% wrong...
The future is large robotic factories making stuff with almost no human involvement. That stuff will then get to us also by robots...
There is coming a time when there is nothing for all the humans to do. We could perhaps create "make work", but even that will be a challenge for anything remotely like capitalism.
We could go back and fourth, but in the end, the future will tell the truth.
We need to stop having people who are poor single parents with 4 kids...
If you want kids, you should be able to pay for them... we have WAY too many people adding to the world population who shouldn't be...
If the kids are still hungry, we have issues beyond what just giving them money that's 'dedicated' to food. Hell, converting restricted resources(like WIC warrants) to fungible(exchangable) ones already happens, and it's so bad in some areas that schools have to serve breakfast, lunch, and dinner to the kids or they don't eat. I have issues with that.
So do I, it is child abuse as far as I'm concerned and it is why we have Child Protective Services.
I don't like CPS sometimes, I think they make mistakes and do the wrong thing sometimes...
But not all the time, sometimes they save children's lives from people who are not fit parents...
If there are children who are not eating because the parents are idiots, then it is time to take those kids away...
But then people cry "Why SHOULD bill gates get it? He's a millionairre?"
Those people are morons and shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Sad to say, I'm no longer convinced that the "one person, one vote" system works. Lots of people are complete idiots, we would probably be better off with a completely random person than who idiots elect.
Just look at Bush and Obama, both complete idiots themselves.
A friend of mine peaked in his early twenties. He was doing highly skilled technical work on embedded electronics. They moved the job and he couldn't bicycle or bus-ride to get there anymore. He worked computer repair for a depot place, but they closed. He ended up at a computer big-box store that is now closed. He followed coworkers from that big-box store into retail. He eventually had supervisors that didn't like him and would only give him ten hours a week to try to get him to quit, but he wouldn't quit to go anywhere else. Eventually they were fired and the new supervisors gave him full-time again, but shlepping retail packages to restock store shelves has taken its toll on him and it's exceedingly unlikely that anyone else would hire him.
He made a mistake really early on...
When I was 19 years old, I went out looking for a wonderful employee... and hired myself...
Best decision I ever made... In one form or another, I've owned my own business for more than 20 years. I'm financially secure, my home is more than 50% paid off, I have savings and money in the bank, and I can't be fired or laid off...
Why in the world people want to work for others is beyond me, but there must be some appeal in it somewhere. I guess I should be glad most people want a job, it has allowed me to hire hundreds of people over the years, they have been kind enough to give me their time in return for making me lots of money.
If that sounds nuts, it is, but that is how it works. It isn't new either, it worked that way 500 years ago as well, nothing much has changed there.
:) The irony is that you are so sure of yourself... ...and yet you're so completely wrong for so many reasons...
These sorts of arguments always are arguments from ignorance. The form, "I can't think of what they will do, therefore they won't find jobs!" No, the answer is you need to think harder.
Or, perhaps at some point, there won't be enough new jobs...
There is no universal law that says, "new jobs must be found, thus they will be".
Millions of people drive vehicles for a living, that profession doesn't have a future in it. Some of them will of course find new things to do, but not all of them.
Job creation the past 10 years has been terrible. While the economy recovers, people aren't finding new work at the same pace.
Those are just the few businesses I can think of off the top of my head. Good entrepreneurs are going to come up with many more. They will need people to implement and work out the procedures which may eventually be automated.
Yes, they will need people... but not nearly as many as are being replaced...
There is an end game here, one where you no longer need millions of people...
It isn't tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow, but that day is coming...
You should watch the recent Mythbusters episode where they tried this...
Short of hitting a metal electrical box in the wall, even a 9mm went right through several layers of drywall and even a 2x4, and was still lethal...
A .45 has twice the energy of a 9mm, it would be lethal through a lot... more than I'd care to test...
Yea, you're a tough guy...
I own guns, but I'm the first one to say that a AR is a horrible weapon for home invasion... The rounds WAY over penetrate and you're responsible for the rounds, no matter why you're shooting...
A shotgun with birdshot is the only weapon I'd use in my home. Even a .45 is too much risk of over-penetration.
The games aren't any smaller on the iPhone. I have Real Racing 3 on my phone, it is over 1GB in size.
I have my Amazon Music collection downloaded to my phone, that is nearly 10GB in size.
When we travel, we like to put movies on our devices, those take up a LOT of space in a big, big hurry.
While that is all true, the margin in the larger versions of Apple products is so large it is noticeable to your average consumer who is more aware than ever what flash costs.
While you're correct about making profits and supply and demand, the issue gets muddy when you become the size of a company like Apple.
Apple has risks and image concerns that small companies don't have. Everything they do makes the front page, any midsteps also make the front page.
A comparison would be the min wage protests against companies like McDonalds. You don't see those protests on the news against Jack in the Box, Wataburger, or Wendy's, now do you?
When you're the biggest fish in the sea, the rules just aren't the same.
The point of the article is that Apple would be well to remember this, that while profit is important, so is image, customer satisfaction, etc. Apple has so much money that doing something "right by people" once in awhile can pay large dividends.
It builds good will that can be cashed in later if needed.
Right back at you... Seriously, if you don't understand the point that was being made, perhaps you shouldn't post at all...
Critical thinking skills clearly are lacking, and you aren't the only poster in this topic to be so clueless...
You just stick whatever size sd card you need in there and now you have portable storage.
How do you install a SD card in a iPhone?
The median usage of data on an iphone is 7GB.
That makes sense, considering that most iPhones are 16GB in size...
So the people complaining about it, really know nothing.
So, you really know nothing, since it would be impossible for the usage on a 16GB iPhone to be much more than about 12GB (due to not all 16GB being usable).
This is obvious, shame you don't get that.
Sure, that would be fine, if the jump from the 16GB version to the 64GB version wasn't $100 friggin dollars...
For FLASH storage that costs maybe $5 if they are being really nice about it...
App development is crucial to the iPhone (and any other smartphone out there), and many developers don't like to do the extra work to keep their application sizes sane. However, as long as the base model is 16Gb, app developers need to keep this in mind when developing their apps.
That would be nice, if it worked like that... but already way too many apps are getting big.
Sure, Facebook isn't too big and others are reasonable, but how big can the Facebook app really get?
Try downloading Real Racing 3 or the Disney Infinity 2.0 app and tell me about app sizes. As I look at my kid's iPad, there are over 10 apps that are over 1GB in size each.
Ok, that is an iPad, not an iPhone, but same thing more or less.
Add in people in the high tax bracket actually paying their tax rate
That is is not going to happen. That didn't happen last year, 10 years ago, or 50 years ago...
There is a world of difference between the "top tax rate" and the "top marginal tax rate", or what people actually pay.
We are also still well below our tax rates from the 1990s when America was arguably at its most prosperous time for everybody.
Correlation is not causation... no one paid those rates either...
You should do some math on the energy required to move six people, all the stuff they need to live for a year, from Earth to Mars in 3 months.
Then you should figure out the size of the chemical rocket you'll need to do that. Just for fun, I'll let you cut the final number in half.
It will still be a stupidly massive huge number that isn't reasonable.
Then you should do the same math for a trip to Jupiter's moons, this time taking 6 months. This time I'll be really nice and let you cut the number down to 25%, assuming large advances in chemical rockets.
Same stupid big number.
We aren't going anywhere using chemical rockets, the size gets to unreasonable numbers amazingly quickly.
except energy is one of the reasons for the huge labor costs.
If you didn't require an expendable vehicle the size of Saturn V just to put 2 people on the moon for a day, then that cost could be much lower.
Materials, labor, energy, all cost something. A small, efficient, reusable spacecraft that could lift objects for a fraction of the effort currently expended is what is needed.
Nuclear, or even anti-matter/matter, engines are still propellant based, and Orion from the 50s was and is a viable system.
Perhaps, or perhaps not... NASA's Ion Drive was a nice step forward. Not useful for leaving Earth's Gravity Well, but a nice advance for moving between planets using less mass for a given unit of acceleration...
The reality is that not enough work has been done to develop them.
Imagine for a min if the best jet engines we had were the ones used in the Gloster Meteor and the ME-262, and someone suggested building a 747 using jet power. You'd think they were nuts. And you'd be right, if that was the limit of your vision.
But jet engines developed rapidly from the 40's, to the 50's and beyond, so that today we have amazingly reliable, fuel efficient, powerful engines that would have been pure fantasy in 1944.
So you have to be willing to imagine a future when they are far, far better than today. Because chemical rockets aren't it.
Yep, you're right... Except directly around the reactor itself, most of that area is now at fairly safe levels.
The area that is "unsafe" continues to shrink every year. While the reactor core itself will remain unsafe for a long time, the actual amount of land lost is pretty minor.
And of course they broke every safety rule in the book when they blew up the reactor.
First, we shouldn't be building such unsafe designs in the first place and we should be taking the existing ones out of service.
Second, we should be building much safer designs, after all the technology has moved on a lot in 30 years. It would move on even more if we bothered to get over our "OMG the nuclears" fears.
And finally, if we limit ourselves to solar, wind, and hydro power (since coal, oil, and natural gas are not long term options), then we aren't going anywhere and are doomed long term as a species.
There's a little place in Ukraine which will be inhabitable in another 10,000 years or so, and Japan is still dealing with the fallout.
I can only assume you mean Chernobyl.
First, that was an example of extreme human stupidity, and while we can't promise humans won't be stupid again, it is worth noting that a few bad events compared to the huge number of good ones shouldn't cause us to all give up.
It is also worth noting that the bulk of the area around Chernobyl is now safe to move back to. This idea that the whole area is unsafe for 10,000 years is just silly.
We put 12 people on the moon by brute forcing it with a huge sum of money and a massive rocket that was never really safe to begin with, all to have a few hours to walk around up there.
It worked, and it is just amazing how it all happened, but it wasn't a sustainable future which is why the last three missions were canceled.
It is simply not reasonable to launch Saturn V rockets to put 2 people on the moon for a day. The cost/return ratio is, pardon the pun, out of this world. :)