In a sense, the machine is making money for you. The effect of the machines is that products become cheaper. So, instead of working 60 hours a week, you could work 40 hours, and still make enough money to cover the necessities. As machines take more and more work, you work fewer and fewer hours. In the asymptotical case that machines do all the work, you can just sit back, and order an "Earl Grey tea, hot".
Well, you were the one who was curious. I'm just giving you a hint where you can possibly find an answer. If that's too much work, then I guess the question didn't really interest you that much. Fine with me.
economically rational company will cut costs whenever possible
Not true. Cost cutting programs only become popular during economic downturns. Also, keeping employees happy is good for profits, and giving them a fair share is an easy way to accomplish that.
Unskilled laborers always have it rough. Machines only improve the situation. Maybe not as much as you'd like, though.
Power in itself isn't very fulfilling. Power is helpful if you can guide more wealth towards you, but it's better to have more wealth in the first place.
For instance, if you're an ancient king with sore teeth, being in power does not help. You may be able to command somebody to pull them out without sedation, but it's much better to go visit a 21st century dentist.
The gap is bigger now than a few decades ago, but that's not because of increased use of robots. It's because we're running out of oil that fuels them (also a few other reasons, but that's too far off-topic). And when wealth is decreasing, those who have power can make sure their share isn't affected.
What happened with increased automation is that lower income moved to middle class. The trend may be reversing now, but that has more to do with resources running out.
It does. Middle class people now have a better life than a king a few centuries ago. Of course, it's easy to take all the modern things for granted, and find something to complain about.
You don't have to own the machines. Because of all the automation on the farms, and industry, I can now buy a loaf of bread for a dollar. The profits of the machines are passed on to everybody.
If it's individual vs a bunch of other individuals, then they can resolve it in court.
And the court decides based on laws, so there's little difference. In the end it comes down to a majority of people making a decision that will then be enforced on the minority. Yes, It's a lousy system, but the alternatives are worse.
Getting reliable, inorder message transfer is difficult
That's probably why it wasn't done. The beauty of TCP/IP is it's simplicity, and that's probably also why it was so successful. For most applications, the stream model works fine, so why would it be better to implement a more complex message transfer protocol instead ?
Why would the stream problem cause problems ? It's not that hard to transport messages over a stream. A trivial solution would be to the send the message length, followed by the message.
Slashdot Mirror
In a sense, the machine is making money for you. The effect of the machines is that products become cheaper. So, instead of working 60 hours a week, you could work 40 hours, and still make enough money to cover the necessities. As machines take more and more work, you work fewer and fewer hours. In the asymptotical case that machines do all the work, you can just sit back, and order an "Earl Grey tea, hot".
If the machines can do everything, then by definition, they can find all the resources they need to function.
Well, you were the one who was curious. I'm just giving you a hint where you can possibly find an answer. If that's too much work, then I guess the question didn't really interest you that much. Fine with me.
Not true. Cost cutting programs only become popular during economic downturns. Also, keeping employees happy is good for profits, and giving them a fair share is an easy way to accomplish that.
Unskilled laborers always have it rough. Machines only improve the situation. Maybe not as much as you'd like, though.
Power in itself isn't very fulfilling. Power is helpful if you can guide more wealth towards you, but it's better to have more wealth in the first place.
For instance, if you're an ancient king with sore teeth, being in power does not help. You may be able to command somebody to pull them out without sedation, but it's much better to go visit a 21st century dentist.
The gap is bigger now than a few decades ago, but that's not because of increased use of robots. It's because we're running out of oil that fuels them (also a few other reasons, but that's too far off-topic). And when wealth is decreasing, those who have power can make sure their share isn't affected.
Then study Germany and see why it works there.
If machines can do literally everything, the price of the bread will drop to zero dollars, so there's no problem.
No, but there are always opportunities to earn one.
Germany is one of the worlds biggest exporters, and has a fairly healthy economy, and they don't have a minimum wage for most jobs.
Distribution actually improves in times of prosperity, so it's not as big a problem.
What happened with increased automation is that lower income moved to middle class. The trend may be reversing now, but that has more to do with resources running out.
If the machines create extra profit for the company, there is less need for cost cutting. Most people will still benefit from more automation.
It does. Middle class people now have a better life than a king a few centuries ago. Of course, it's easy to take all the modern things for granted, and find something to complain about.
You don't have to own the machines. Because of all the automation on the farms, and industry, I can now buy a loaf of bread for a dollar. The profits of the machines are passed on to everybody.
If the machines do the work, things get cheaper, so you don't need as much income to buy them. The rest is a matter of distribution.
These "rights" of which you speak are an artificial concept. If the majority votes against these "rights", then you no longer have them.
So, instead of working, you can now play while a machine does the work. Seems like an improvement to me.
And the court decides based on laws, so there's little difference. In the end it comes down to a majority of people making a decision that will then be enforced on the minority. Yes, It's a lousy system, but the alternatives are worse.
Dr Oz even gets more credit, because they think the specialist is getting paid by big pharma.
It's not the individual vs "society", but the individual vs a bunch of other individuals.
They should try it first, see if all the mechanisms still work after all these years.
The core of TCP, as its original RFC 793, is quite straightforward. The many later additions have made it more complicated, though.
That's probably why it wasn't done. The beauty of TCP/IP is it's simplicity, and that's probably also why it was so successful. For most applications, the stream model works fine, so why would it be better to implement a more complex message transfer protocol instead ?
Why would the stream problem cause problems ? It's not that hard to transport messages over a stream. A trivial solution would be to the send the message length, followed by the message.