Just a ballpark figure: $200 for gps, $200 for 2 way satphone, $200 for hardened case, $200 for 30 day battery, and $200 for long range antenna and everything else I forgot.
That isn't how it works...
Nothing can be attached to an aircraft for that little...
Since they DIDN'T upgrade to Windows 10, they obviously had recommended updates turned off. They were proactive about their computers. The problem here is Microsoft is changing the game, obfuscating the Windows 10 upgrade in the hope that you will install the update disguised behind the completely ineffective red "X".
I think you're mistaken...
There wouldn't be a "red X" to click if they had recommended updates turned off. That they had anything to click says they were on.
Finally, I'll bring up another point... how many businesses are running Windows Home edition that has less control than the business editions? There is another problem.
I run a domain in my office, I control the network and updates myself, all my computers run the Pro edition of Windows and there are differences that matter for an administered environment.
If you depend on technology for your business to work, then you're in the tech business, at least in so far as you must have someone who understands all this and keeps ahead of it. Either employ someone or hire a company or person to do it for you.
Okay, I'll play this game: specifically what did GOP do then that made the econ take off?
They balanced the budget, cut government spending, and promoted a business environment that encouraged investment by private companies.
The 2000s were doing just fine as well, until the Housing bubble happened (and all parties are responsible for that one, I don't blame anyone specifically).
Since Obama, nothing but crap and anti-business nonsense.
Why not? The best economy of recent years was under Bill. I don't count Reagan because he had a "stimulus" by jacking spending and debt way up.
You don't have to understand, you just have to believe it.
Bill Clinton isn't why the 90s were great, the Republicans in the House are why the 90s were great. He was just along for the ride.
Where are they going? Let's punish tax heavens: they use gimmicks to suck away wealth and because we let them they keep doing it. Tell the WTO to go to hell: we negotiate on OUR terms.
No, you don't understand... They didn't send their money overseas to a tax haven, they physically left France. As in, moved to another country because no one is going to pay 75% of their income to the government.
Or do you plan to build a Berlin Wall around America to keep people in?
BTW, a lot of French went to the UK, which shockingly has better taxes than France does. Others went to Germany, Belgium, and the US.
Personally I think robots are the worst thing they'll ever do, for a lot of reasons.
That is because you only see in black and white...
Robots won't replace 100% of workers at McDonalds, just most of them...
Here's the thing though, that $15 wage is a strawman.
No, the $15 wage is pushing companies to action. Lots of companies weren't moving very fast on this stuff, but now they are. At $7.25/hr lots of companies were just sitting around with the status quo. At $15/hr, they have done the math and will get off their butts and change things.
The $15/hr thing was much too big of a move. $10/hr likely would have caused fewer disruptions.
Most people will sit around, eat, have sex, get fat, litter the planet with their directionless offspring
You can't have a UBI without population controls.
There will have to be limits on how many kids you're allowed to have.
It could be a hard cap, like China, or it could be a soft cap, such as instead of a "child tax credit", there is just a "child tax". You can have more kids, if you can afford to pay for them.
Imagine if you got $2,000 a month, but lost $500 a month for every kid you had. Have 6 kids, and you owe $1,000 a month to society.
Result: poor people and uneducated people stop reproducing and wealthy educated people have the kids. This is better than the current situation.
1. Basic income. With all this productive efficiency that don't need human labor, either you deal with a mass uprising, kill them off, or you tax the rich
There will never be enough rich to tax... I make many times the "average" income in the US, yet I pay less in taxes than the "average" person does, because I play the game.
Try and raise my taxes and I'll adjust how I play, but I'm not giving 1/3 of my money to the government, no matter how nicely you ask.
If worse comes to worse, I'll leave, as people with money are able to do.
---
Sadly, killing them will be far easier, if heartless. But it isn't required. If we actually plan for this now, we can have a peaceful transition that doesn't require any of those options.
But such a thing would require brains, future planning, and a willingness to accept a different future. I would do it, but most won't, sadly.
Yes, this is exactly what the millions of Americans who are independently wealthy do all day.
Many of those people either had a good upbringing with parents that taught them well, or they earned the money and thus are not "normal people".
You average wage worker won't behave like them.
If you don't think inherited wealth ruins the rich
Plenty of people inherit wealth and squander it. Those who earn it tend to do better.
Trump's kids, for example, did not have the same "chance" growing up that most kids get. While they have learned business and can make something of themselves, they got a MASSIVE head start because of who Dad is.
And that is NOT just because of the money, but because of the knowledge, schooling, and exposure they received.
Giving $50,000 to your average idiot won't produce anything like the same results.
Productivity has about doubled since 1970. That's only 40 years ago. If you believe the trend is linear, it will double again in another 40 years, but if it is exponential, then it will quadrouple in another 40 years.
That can't continue forever, within 3 lifetimes it would become almost unlimited productivity.
A hypothetical $1,000,000 invested in an index fund is expected to return around 7% interest over the long term.
Yes, because few people do that. If everyone did it, it wouldn't return 7%. The historical record is based on few doing it, it doesn't work for everyone.
Imagine if everyone had $1 million tomorrow and invested it. Into what? Who would work? A small amount of critical thinking will point out the massive big flaw in that plan.
Note that the cost of the Iraq war was $1.7 trillion dollars, spent over a decade. That amount of money awarded to worker annuities could have reduced the workforce by 1.7 million workers, making the remaining jobs easier to find.
That money was churned into the economy, not invested in the stock market. The effects would have been very different had it been spent differently.
Note that we are rapidly developing self-driving vehicles. The first self-driving semi is on the road right now!
Even if the self-driving vehicle isn't useful 100% of the time (snow, limited visibility), by my calculations this will dump 2.5 million into the labor force almost instantly.
Note that Amazon is experimenting with delivery by drone. This could potentially drop another million into the workforce almost overnight. (If you include postal workers and some others not accounted for in the previous link.)
Yes, the solution is probably far fewer people, but you won't like the war that it takes to remove them.
Regardless of whether you think it will work or not, something has to change.
Yes, it does... but be careful what you wish for, you may not like it...
It will probably involve a period where poor people kill rich people, similar to the olden days when the people revolted and killed their lords. I'm looking forward to it.
Spoken like a poor person...
The difference this time around is weapons are not equal between rich and poor, government and citizen, and the stupid liberals want to disarm themselves.
Take it one step further, watch the updated Atlas robot video walking outside on snow. Now advance that robot 10 years and give it a gun.
2. Inflation is too low. Economies tend to do best with inflation around 2.2% (annual), but we've been hovering around 1.7% for a while.
You believe the government numbers? I don't, the price of stuff is rising, they are just being really selective about how they measure it.
3. Low interest rates are not triggering investments.
Blame Obama... I'm a business owner, I have money. I'm not investing it because I don't trust the Democrats. If Hillary wins, I still won't invest it (not here anyway). If Trump wins, I will.
I have other business owner friends who feel the same way.
Taxing the wealthy heavily is one common suggestion for distributing this "jammed" wealth, but this rubs many people wrong.
That doesn't work. France tried it by raising the top tax rate to 75%. Result? Tens of thousands of the wealthiest have left.
The US corporate tax rate is 35%, yet few large companies pay that. Raising it will just reduce what you collect, not increase it.
Outright printing money and distributing it to regular consumers is another suggestion (AKA "helicopter money"), but nobody is sure of the side-effects.
Bull crap, the side-effects are clear and obvious. 1930's Germany and 2000s Zimbabwe.
What are the other options?
Reduce the population, limit the birth of children, and probably war... the long run may well have a basic income and everything made by robots, but the transition from here to there will be very messy..
Well I hope he has siblings then, as otherwise it must be a pretty lonely time.
He does, but he also plays with friends. Either they come here, or they play at the bounce house (a local business that has way cool massive bounce toys), or we take them to the mall (which has a kids play area), etc.
My point is that he doesn't play with other kids in their homes without our supervision.
As far as "forbidden", keep in mind that my son already has his own rifle and I've let him shoot my handgun as well. These are not "forbidden", they are just serious things that require a serious approach and are not toys.
Even my 5 year old has been able to shoot his brothers rifle once (with Dad's help of course), it takes the fear and mystery out of it. It also allows me to explain the difference between video games and real life, because I can't put the watermelon back together again after we destroy it with a gun.
Amen... If you use technology in your business, then to some extent, you're IN the tech business, at least in so far as needing someone competent to manage it.
If a random employee sets up your computers, or the boss does it between meetings, and then something goes wrong and your first response is to swear at the computer or Microsoft, then you're doing it wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Just a ballpark figure: $200 for gps, $200 for 2 way satphone, $200 for hardened case, $200 for 30 day battery, and $200 for long range antenna and everything else I forgot.
That isn't how it works...
Nothing can be attached to an aircraft for that little...
Such a floating USB flash drive would cost maximum a hundred USD even if equipped with a tiny LED lamp
^ Says the person who doesn't know anything about what it costs to install equipment to an airliner...
It would probably add $50,000 to the price of each airplane, for something so rarely used...
No, again you lack vision...
Paper money is only going to last so long, at some point everyone will have to go digital because the government will do it...
That is why it will work...
humans are much nicer to deal with then a machine that's always bugging you to follow a certain routine for theft prevention.
Yes, but that is because you assume that current self-checkouts are it, that's the peak of the technology, it'll never improve.
You're wrong. BADLY wrong...
https://youtu.be/eob532iEpqk
THAT is the future... or some form of it...
The idea of scanning items one at a time is stupid, it is only a matter of time.
Put it all in your cart, bag it as you go, walk out of the store, it charges to your card.
There won't even need to be checkout lines at all, you just come and go as you please, because the store knows who you are.
Since they DIDN'T upgrade to Windows 10, they obviously had recommended updates turned off. They were proactive about their computers. The problem here is Microsoft is changing the game, obfuscating the Windows 10 upgrade in the hope that you will install the update disguised behind the completely ineffective red "X".
I think you're mistaken...
There wouldn't be a "red X" to click if they had recommended updates turned off. That they had anything to click says they were on.
Finally, I'll bring up another point... how many businesses are running Windows Home edition that has less control than the business editions? There is another problem.
I run a domain in my office, I control the network and updates myself, all my computers run the Pro edition of Windows and there are differences that matter for an administered environment.
If you depend on technology for your business to work, then you're in the tech business, at least in so far as you must have someone who understands all this and keeps ahead of it. Either employ someone or hire a company or person to do it for you.
The robots to replace wages are.
4 years is nothing, it will take that to do a mass rollout anyway.
You should watch "humans need not apply"
This time is different.
Okay, I'll play this game: specifically what did GOP do then that made the econ take off?
They balanced the budget, cut government spending, and promoted a business environment that encouraged investment by private companies.
The 2000s were doing just fine as well, until the Housing bubble happened (and all parties are responsible for that one, I don't blame anyone specifically).
Since Obama, nothing but crap and anti-business nonsense.
Why not? The best economy of recent years was under Bill. I don't count Reagan because he had a "stimulus" by jacking spending and debt way up.
You don't have to understand, you just have to believe it.
Bill Clinton isn't why the 90s were great, the Republicans in the House are why the 90s were great. He was just along for the ride.
Where are they going? Let's punish tax heavens: they use gimmicks to suck away wealth and because we let them they keep doing it. Tell the WTO to go to hell: we negotiate on OUR terms.
No, you don't understand... They didn't send their money overseas to a tax haven, they physically left France. As in, moved to another country because no one is going to pay 75% of their income to the government.
Or do you plan to build a Berlin Wall around America to keep people in?
BTW, a lot of French went to the UK, which shockingly has better taxes than France does. Others went to Germany, Belgium, and the US.
Personally I think robots are the worst thing they'll ever do, for a lot of reasons.
That is because you only see in black and white...
Robots won't replace 100% of workers at McDonalds, just most of them...
Here's the thing though, that $15 wage is a strawman.
No, the $15 wage is pushing companies to action. Lots of companies weren't moving very fast on this stuff, but now they are. At $7.25/hr lots of companies were just sitting around with the status quo. At $15/hr, they have done the math and will get off their butts and change things.
The $15/hr thing was much too big of a move. $10/hr likely would have caused fewer disruptions.
Most people will sit around, eat, have sex, get fat, litter the planet with their directionless offspring
You can't have a UBI without population controls.
There will have to be limits on how many kids you're allowed to have.
It could be a hard cap, like China, or it could be a soft cap, such as instead of a "child tax credit", there is just a "child tax". You can have more kids, if you can afford to pay for them.
Imagine if you got $2,000 a month, but lost $500 a month for every kid you had. Have 6 kids, and you owe $1,000 a month to society.
Result: poor people and uneducated people stop reproducing and wealthy educated people have the kids. This is better than the current situation.
- He cuts about 10 lawns a day, Monday- Friday @ between $50-75 per lawn.
Holy crap you're getting ripped off...
I pay $20 a mow and that includes edging, trim, and cleanup with a blower...
And that is to a COMPANY... still Mexicans, but there is a white guy who owns it who has to make something as well.
1. Basic income. With all this productive efficiency that don't need human labor, either you deal with a mass uprising, kill them off, or you tax the rich
There will never be enough rich to tax... I make many times the "average" income in the US, yet I pay less in taxes than the "average" person does, because I play the game.
Try and raise my taxes and I'll adjust how I play, but I'm not giving 1/3 of my money to the government, no matter how nicely you ask.
If worse comes to worse, I'll leave, as people with money are able to do.
---
Sadly, killing them will be far easier, if heartless. But it isn't required. If we actually plan for this now, we can have a peaceful transition that doesn't require any of those options.
But such a thing would require brains, future planning, and a willingness to accept a different future. I would do it, but most won't, sadly.
When the machine doesn't make fries, it's idle.
You assume that making fries is all that it can do...
https://youtu.be/rVlhMGQgDkY
This won't be out next year, or in 5 years, or probably even 10... But I'll bet in 20 it will be...
Raise min/wage to $15/hr and cut that time in half...
Take a more advanced version of this, put 4 of them in a McDonalds, and you really only need a manager.
The REAL question is, what do we do with the displaced manufacturing workers, who are becoming increasingly replaced by robots?
Polite conversation will say "social benefits such as UBI".
The real answer is that they are surplus and no longer needed. It is heartless to say that, but it is the truth.
50 years from now, we likely will need the planet to have half the current population. The sticky part is picking which half.
Along with ideas like UBI comes population control. The hard way is to say China's way. The soft way is to adjust benefits base on kids.
Lets say everyone gets $2,000 a month. Reduce that by $500 for each kid you have. You have 6 kids? You owe the government $1,000 a month.
You can have as many kids as you can compensate society for. Think of it like a kid tax, similar to a carbon tax.
No they aren't...
Bringing back the manufacturing does two things:
1. It increases your local tax base, both for those employees who are hired and for the churn of business that happens locally.
2. It changes the balance of imports and exports and changes the flow of cash around the world.
Even if the job numbers aren't huge, what jobs there will be will be well paying ones.
1 expert overseeing a hundred robots will be well paid vs 100 low pay, low skill jobs on food stamps.
The building and tools need to be built, and it will encourage local businesses to support the whole enterprise.
Combined with smart corporate tax rates (think 15% instead of 35%) and you'll be far better off.
It is the 100% perfect solution, but it IS better than the current situation.
Yes, this is exactly what the millions of Americans who are independently wealthy do all day.
Many of those people either had a good upbringing with parents that taught them well, or they earned the money and thus are not "normal people".
You average wage worker won't behave like them.
If you don't think inherited wealth ruins the rich
Plenty of people inherit wealth and squander it. Those who earn it tend to do better.
Trump's kids, for example, did not have the same "chance" growing up that most kids get. While they have learned business and can make something of themselves, they got a MASSIVE head start because of who Dad is.
And that is NOT just because of the money, but because of the knowledge, schooling, and exposure they received.
Giving $50,000 to your average idiot won't produce anything like the same results.
Productivity has about doubled since 1970. That's only 40 years ago. If you believe the trend is linear, it will double again in another 40 years, but if it is exponential, then it will quadrouple in another 40 years.
That can't continue forever, within 3 lifetimes it would become almost unlimited productivity.
A hypothetical $1,000,000 invested in an index fund is expected to return around 7% interest over the long term.
Yes, because few people do that. If everyone did it, it wouldn't return 7%. The historical record is based on few doing it, it doesn't work for everyone.
Imagine if everyone had $1 million tomorrow and invested it. Into what? Who would work? A small amount of critical thinking will point out the massive big flaw in that plan.
Note that the cost of the Iraq war was $1.7 trillion dollars, spent over a decade. That amount of money awarded to worker annuities could have reduced the workforce by 1.7 million workers, making the remaining jobs easier to find.
That money was churned into the economy, not invested in the stock market. The effects would have been very different had it been spent differently.
Note that we are rapidly developing self-driving vehicles. The first self-driving semi is on the road right now!
Even if the self-driving vehicle isn't useful 100% of the time (snow, limited visibility), by my calculations this will dump 2.5 million into the labor force almost instantly.
Note that Amazon is experimenting with delivery by drone. This could potentially drop another million into the workforce almost overnight. (If you include postal workers and some others not accounted for in the previous link.)
Yes, the solution is probably far fewer people, but you won't like the war that it takes to remove them.
Regardless of whether you think it will work or not, something has to change.
Yes, it does... but be careful what you wish for, you may not like it...
It will probably involve a period where poor people kill rich people, similar to the olden days when the people revolted and killed their lords.
I'm looking forward to it.
Spoken like a poor person...
The difference this time around is weapons are not equal between rich and poor, government and citizen, and the stupid liberals want to disarm themselves.
Take it one step further, watch the updated Atlas robot video walking outside on snow. Now advance that robot 10 years and give it a gun.
Now build 1 million of them.
Who is going to be killed again?
2. Inflation is too low. Economies tend to do best with inflation around 2.2% (annual), but we've been hovering around 1.7% for a while.
You believe the government numbers? I don't, the price of stuff is rising, they are just being really selective about how they measure it.
3. Low interest rates are not triggering investments.
Blame Obama... I'm a business owner, I have money. I'm not investing it because I don't trust the Democrats. If Hillary wins, I still won't invest it (not here anyway). If Trump wins, I will.
I have other business owner friends who feel the same way.
Taxing the wealthy heavily is one common suggestion for distributing this "jammed" wealth, but this rubs many people wrong.
That doesn't work. France tried it by raising the top tax rate to 75%. Result? Tens of thousands of the wealthiest have left.
The US corporate tax rate is 35%, yet few large companies pay that. Raising it will just reduce what you collect, not increase it.
Outright printing money and distributing it to regular consumers is another suggestion (AKA "helicopter money"), but nobody is sure of the side-effects.
Bull crap, the side-effects are clear and obvious. 1930's Germany and 2000s Zimbabwe.
What are the other options?
Reduce the population, limit the birth of children, and probably war... the long run may well have a basic income and everything made by robots, but the transition from here to there will be very messy..
Well I hope he has siblings then, as otherwise it must be a pretty lonely time.
He does, but he also plays with friends. Either they come here, or they play at the bounce house (a local business that has way cool massive bounce toys), or we take them to the mall (which has a kids play area), etc.
My point is that he doesn't play with other kids in their homes without our supervision.
As far as "forbidden", keep in mind that my son already has his own rifle and I've let him shoot my handgun as well. These are not "forbidden", they are just serious things that require a serious approach and are not toys.
Even my 5 year old has been able to shoot his brothers rifle once (with Dad's help of course), it takes the fear and mystery out of it. It also allows me to explain the difference between video games and real life, because I can't put the watermelon back together again after we destroy it with a gun.
Amen... If you use technology in your business, then to some extent, you're IN the tech business, at least in so far as needing someone competent to manage it.
If a random employee sets up your computers, or the boss does it between meetings, and then something goes wrong and your first response is to swear at the computer or Microsoft, then you're doing it wrong.
No, the problem is you, not MS.
If you had security updates installing but recommended updates turned off, this would not happen.
The problem is people not understanding and being proactive about their computers.
Supported... I don't think you know what THAT word means...
That isn't sad, that is reality. Most people do not share your concerns.
Most of the people posting in this thread are stuck in a echo chamber, unable to see anything else.
So MS knows my web history and my search history. So what, so does Google!
If you are afraid of information getting out, perhaps the Internet isn't for you. Your illusions of privacy online are over inflated.