"any system that must work inefficiently to keep working is inherently broken"
It depends what you value. Many people pay a premium for handmade goods. Why pay $20 for a handmade clay pot when you can buy a mass produced one for $3? Perhaps you value the uniqueness of it? Perhaps you get warm and fuzzy feelings knowing that you're helping support someone who is doing what they enjoy, or at the very least, earning money without the need to own a million dollar factory?
I'm glad you brought up textiles. North Americans own a lot of clothing. The average person would probably be just as happy in life if they owned half the amount of clothing and had paid twice as much. Why not pay people a little more to do the work with dignity? Sure, use machines where quality benefits, or where a task is impossible without, or where something is so menial that it lacks dignity. But, I don't see anything wrong with a little bit of social welfare from companies in the form of jobs for fair wages (there are companies that do this by the way). Yet most clothing companies compete to see who can pay the absolute least amount to people who are already dirt poor. Why? Because we need to be able to buy a shirt at Walmart for $5 and because some millionaire still doesn't have enough money. It's messed up.
I'd take an assembly line job over no job. The displaced unskilled laborer and the engineer who programs the device are not the same person. But I will be sure to tell anyone laid off by a robot to reapply once they've gotten their engineering degree.
"People are the most flexible and useful asset companies have."
No. People are people.
And by the way, the article is about temporary task-specific robots that can be deployed quickly. This is squarely aimed against "flexible" labor.
That said, it's great that you've found a way to increase jobs using automation.
Automation like this only benefits two groups, factory owners and the consumers of the product. Owners want more profit and consumers want cheaper goods. The big loser is the worker who is left without a job. Most workers are also consumers, so more automation is required to keep prices at their level given that they are shifted into lower paying "service" jobs. It's a vicious cycle that's been going on for a century and we now have unheard of disparity between rich and poor. I love the idea of robots doing our bidding and appreciate this tech, but the reality of it sucks.
I am not a Luddite, but we need to think about how tech affect society. I think most engineers would agree that there are certain technologies that are unethical to work in. To me, this is one of them.
Yeah, and how do you know your kids will have kids and their kids, and so on? You don't.
You're espousing some kind of biological reductionism without even a basic understanding genetics: your children only inherit half of your genes. So, genius, a mere handful of generations from now, your genes are going to be thinned out to a mere blip just like everyone's. At 10,000 years from now, it's not going to matter if it was you or your cousin who had the kid.
A comet hitting the sun is pretty awesome, I don't care how often it happens.
It's breathtaking to watch and beats 99.9% of "real news" any day.
I wish we had more mainstream news like this. It might cause people reflect more on all the petty crap that gets them down. "Wah, I lost my keys...wait, at least I didn't get smoked by a frickin' ice comet!"
Good point. It isn't much different. I suppose that's a plutocracy problem as well as a copyright one. It's large media companies that lobby for such extensions, not your typical artist.
They knew (or should have known) that when then they took up fine arts as a profession. Nobody is entitled to make a living from art just because they think they should. They have to earn it the same as anyone else.
Yes, I agree. But why is it that OS supporters, who are invariably geeks and other variety of sysadmin, feel they need to constantly opine on arts-related copyright issues? Just because you listen to music and store it digitally does not make you an expert in the industry. Listening to geeks yammer on about alternate copyright for music is like listening to Lady Gaga talk about coding.
What I DO have a problem with is the artist and their descendants have a perpetual income from those works. Copyright is supposed to be for a LIMITED time and there certainly is no justifiable reason why the copyright should extend beyond the time required to settle the estate of the artist.
Yes, that's nice. Pro-tip: It is limited and is not perpetual.
Now I'm going to listen to Bob Dylan mumble on about how developers should be forced to release their source code after a limited time that he deems long enough for them to have made a reasonable return.
Yeah, and how was it a disaster? There appears to be a vast amount of music available at very low prices. Over the past 100 year music has evolved at an unprecedented rate. We now have thousands of different musical styles from millions of artists. And this was a disaster because you cannot publicly perform Happy Birthday without paying a small royalty?
People in fine arts on average earn far less than the average techie, so you know what? Stop trying to foist your "free" philosophy on everyone. It's disingenuous to suggest that art should be free (or even cheap) when you're pulling in $100k securing networks against people who would use them for free.
Slashdot Mirror
And have their passwords on a sticky note attached to their monitor.
Then stop making up change our passwords every 2 months. We all know that doesn't work anyway.
Really? Since the 70s? Like TFS says?
Call us when you learn to read.
Fine. I accept that label after reading about the Luddite Fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite_fallacy
"any system that must work inefficiently to keep working is inherently broken"
It depends what you value. Many people pay a premium for handmade goods. Why pay $20 for a handmade clay pot when you can buy a mass produced one for $3? Perhaps you value the uniqueness of it? Perhaps you get warm and fuzzy feelings knowing that you're helping support someone who is doing what they enjoy, or at the very least, earning money without the need to own a million dollar factory?
I'm glad you brought up textiles. North Americans own a lot of clothing. The average person would probably be just as happy in life if they owned half the amount of clothing and had paid twice as much. Why not pay people a little more to do the work with dignity? Sure, use machines where quality benefits, or where a task is impossible without, or where something is so menial that it lacks dignity. But, I don't see anything wrong with a little bit of social welfare from companies in the form of jobs for fair wages (there are companies that do this by the way). Yet most clothing companies compete to see who can pay the absolute least amount to people who are already dirt poor. Why? Because we need to be able to buy a shirt at Walmart for $5 and because some millionaire still doesn't have enough money. It's messed up.
I'd take an assembly line job over no job. The displaced unskilled laborer and the engineer who programs the device are not the same person. But I will be sure to tell anyone laid off by a robot to reapply once they've gotten their engineering degree.
"People are the most flexible and useful asset companies have."
No. People are people.
And by the way, the article is about temporary task-specific robots that can be deployed quickly. This is squarely aimed against "flexible" labor.
That said, it's great that you've found a way to increase jobs using automation.
What's your point? Ancient Egypt vs post-industrial USA is not an apples to apples comparison.
We went off the rails somewhere when people started amassing wealth for the sake of amassing wealth.
The game has been rigged.
Thank you. How I wish I had some mod points.
Automation like this only benefits two groups, factory owners and the consumers of the product. Owners want more profit and consumers want cheaper goods. The big loser is the worker who is left without a job. Most workers are also consumers, so more automation is required to keep prices at their level given that they are shifted into lower paying "service" jobs. It's a vicious cycle that's been going on for a century and we now have unheard of disparity between rich and poor. I love the idea of robots doing our bidding and appreciate this tech, but the reality of it sucks.
I am not a Luddite, but we need to think about how tech affect society. I think most engineers would agree that there are certain technologies that are unethical to work in. To me, this is one of them.
Must we be so violent? This is CPU sales not some barbaric conflict.
If we knew their "angle" we'd be rich like Watsa.
It's disappointing to see so many (presumably) intelligent people on Slashdot clinging to financial morality.
Well congratulations to you for being unlike most people who would happily pay an extra $5 for a phone made without violence.
Or maybe just take public transit and, you know, see other humans IRL.
Yeah, and how do you know your kids will have kids and their kids, and so on? You don't.
You're espousing some kind of biological reductionism without even a basic understanding genetics: your children only inherit half of your genes. So, genius, a mere handful of generations from now, your genes are going to be thinned out to a mere blip just like everyone's. At 10,000 years from now, it's not going to matter if it was you or your cousin who had the kid.
This is untrue, except in the basest biological sense.
Her ideas live on and will likely continue to live for much longer than the typical genetic line.
See also: Alan Turing. (Ah yes, now I see that you are trolling)
A comet hitting the sun is pretty awesome, I don't care how often it happens.
It's breathtaking to watch and beats 99.9% of "real news" any day.
I wish we had more mainstream news like this. It might cause people reflect more on all the petty crap that gets them down. "Wah, I lost my keys...wait, at least I didn't get smoked by a frickin' ice comet!"
Good point. It isn't much different. I suppose that's a plutocracy problem as well as a copyright one. It's large media companies that lobby for such extensions, not your typical artist.
Right. So the only people who would make money in art would be whoever can manufacture the cheapest container.
They knew (or should have known) that when then they took up fine arts as a profession. Nobody is entitled to make a living from art just because they think they should. They have to earn it the same as anyone else.
Yes, I agree. But why is it that OS supporters, who are invariably geeks and other variety of sysadmin, feel they need to constantly opine on arts-related copyright issues? Just because you listen to music and store it digitally does not make you an expert in the industry. Listening to geeks yammer on about alternate copyright for music is like listening to Lady Gaga talk about coding.
What I DO have a problem with is the artist and their descendants have a perpetual income from those works. Copyright is supposed to be for a LIMITED time and there certainly is no justifiable reason why the copyright should extend beyond the time required to settle the estate of the artist.
Yes, that's nice. Pro-tip: It is limited and is not perpetual.
Now I'm going to listen to Bob Dylan mumble on about how developers should be forced to release their source code after a limited time that he deems long enough for them to have made a reasonable return.
Yeah, and how was it a disaster? There appears to be a vast amount of music available at very low prices. Over the past 100 year music has evolved at an unprecedented rate. We now have thousands of different musical styles from millions of artists. And this was a disaster because you cannot publicly perform Happy Birthday without paying a small royalty?
People in fine arts on average earn far less than the average techie, so you know what? Stop trying to foist your "free" philosophy on everyone. It's disingenuous to suggest that art should be free (or even cheap) when you're pulling in $100k securing networks against people who would use them for free.
That's funny because both links I provided support street address lookup.
Oh, lookee here, another one!
http://www.zip2tax.com/
So let's continue to freak out about the complexity of a problem that has already been solved.
Sigh...
http://www.geotax.com/USTaxLookup/Centrustaxlookup.aspx
Among many others free and paid, if you'd bother to Google instead of spouting off nonsense.