I think people will pay far above the basic cost of an item for a few items they consume (like the bread, or Starbucks coffee drinks), but most can't afford to do that for all of the things they consume. So various items can be had in an artisanal way, with people differing about what they are picky about.
That's right, but as long as there's a market for personal service, jobs for humans will still exist (eg training services which have exploded as a profession in the last 20 years). So I'm merely adding weight against the argument that automation will destroy us all.
So do you honestly think $33k per year puts you in the top quartile of Americans?
No idea, but wouldn't dismiss it without further reading. If you take out all the kids and retirees, students, homeless people and prisoners then you'd probably get close to 50% (guessing here). So do half of those earn less than $33k?
Also you not all income distribution is even, and you don't only have to be American, since other rich countries also have poor people.
In any case I'd be happy to see more accurate figures if you have them, but wouldn't dispute it simply because it doesn't sound right.
"They are doing exactly what our nation has asked them to do to protect us. They are the heroes."
Edward Snowden did exactly that and you fucked him in the ass. Why would anyone else bother?
Look people, this sort of tech has been around for decades now.
Exactly. I was too lazy to look up references, but this is nothing new. Anyone who has ridden in an elevator should know that automation didn't end the world.
The folks with all the money realized a few decades ago: there's just too many people
The folks with the money? Ts the same secret society of reptilians that control the world?
If you earn more than $33kyear, then technically you are one of those "folks". When are you going to give up your wealth to someone less fortunate?
Luckily all the high-school dropouts flipping burgers can just go to college and get a degree in liberal arts. Problem solved!
Or just push them into unskilled fields where automation is not easy/wanted. An example I thought of this morning is personal trainers. 30 years ago that job barely existed, and now every second person seems to be one. And people pay for a personal experience because a robot trainer simply would not work.
seems to suggest companies dont give a shit what customers want in an automated form factor.
Automation allows things to be produced more cheaply, for markets that are price sensitive. If you prefer quality, this option will also exist (as they do now).
Example: I went to a hipster bakery on the weekend and the line was down the street to buy $7 loves of sourdough. It cost more, but it was awesome, and many people are happy to pay that for quality.
We're moving in that direction, but we're not there, just yet. I think we'll have a rough couple of years, while the automation steps in.
Why is it the tone of these stories is always that automation is some new thing? This has already been going on for hundreds of years, sure it getting more rapid and will continue to do so, but the automation concept is as old as the first windmill.
Yet the device is not designed for that primarily, so there is not loss of targeted functions. This is a mandatory safety recall for the real risk the model poses.
I argue otherwise. Despite being called a "phone", most people's primary use of their device is not a phone. And even when making calls or messaging, a lot of people use data based apps, not the cellular based comms.
Samsung pays for returns. The phones are disabled at the carrier. Otherwise you can keep your brick/bomb. In civilized countries you are not allowed items that endanger the public with no other function.
My understanding is that the issue is not the phone but the battery, ie the battery is too densely packed so a fire risk. Couldn't Samsung build a smaller capacity battery so that millions of device can still be safely used?
, the 1% who own more net worth than the 99% of the rest of us (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35339475).
1% sounds like the high flyers, but if you're talking global population, you only have to earn $33k/year and you're one of them. Suddenly being a 1%er doesn't sound so evil...
Ah, yes. They'll follow the lead of the other hardware makers. Ones who are doing such a good job, their profits are increasing.
Like the companies on the following list:
Most successful companies eventually fail because they lose focus on their core strengths, just like Apple did the first time around. It would be foolish to believe that even the most successful business in the world today, can't fail tomorrow.
I could be wrong, I am quite a bit, but the lack of headphone jack and airpods seems like a poor move to me. I was actually at a concert last night and noticing all the cables connected to mics and guitars etc, it became apparent that even though wireless technology is quite common, the pros still use cables.
Not all applications of technology are good.
Even the quickest of skimming TFA and you will see its talking about passengers using the carpool offerings of lyft and uber to hook up with other passengers, not with the driver.
And if you had've read the whole summary, all 4 lines of it, you would see the quote from the actual policy specifically mention drivers.
All this ranting about uber treating their contractors as employees are completely misplaced in this thread. I guess at this point I should fail to be surprised.
Take a look at the people who put the elected ones there. They aren't shouting "get off my lawn!". Until now.
Of course they are. Maybe you are just young, but nothing here is new. Do you think Lincoln was the establishment candidate? Or Caeser? Khan? Same as it always was, or do you genuinely think history just so happens to have shifted at the same time as you've matured as a person? Do you also think music was the best ever when you were between the ages of 14-24? And young kids these days aren't like when you were young?
You are a robot playing that same old script that has been playing for millennia. "No but this time it's different". No it isn't, in 30 years we'll have this exact same conversation.
Depends on when you were born. The Beatles broke up before I was born, so I found out about them through marketing.
If not for marketing, my children would probably not know who they are either (I can tell them, but they wouldn't listen to me). So it does work.
However, many independent artists would leap at the change to sign with a label, since 10% of something is better than 100% of nothing.
THIS. People always make the mistake of looking at high revenues that big-name artists get and dream of doing that themselves.
I've watched enough versions of Dragon's Den (or Shark Tank depending where you live) to know how important this is. So many fools hang on to 100% ownership because they can't figure out that $100% of peanuts is a worse position than 50% of a golden egg.
Nevertheless, they CAN still serve a function, and thus many independent artists still DO sign on.
Which is why they still exist, because they actually work.
The difference here is the old people actually have the political power to do something about it.
Old people have always been in power. Take a look at all the presidents, congresspeople, generals, CEO's, and other leaders over time. All old, all of the time.
Move back a few generations. The "old" generation had children, forming the "middle" generation. Time passes, and the "middle" generation takes political an economic power because it is larger than the "old" one.
It has nothing to do with size. Leadership skills generally take decades to develop, so leaders are always in the 45-65 age range (give or take). It has always been this way, because advanced skills take a long time to accumulate.
The "middle" generation has children. The "Old people" complain about this new generation. But they lack the political and economic power to really fuck them over. Because the "middle" generation outnumbers the "old" generation.
Apart from everyone in political power being old you mean? You might want to check the age of the last two presidential candidates and tell me how this middle generation are supposedly taking over?
I feel like you're just too wound up now to be rational in an attempt to "win" something so good luck convincing someone else.
Interesting that you 'feel' something somehow, and just go with that. Not very rational.
The fact remains, the link I posted has cited research from multiple universities. You chose to ignore the actual information and attack the messenger.
> Weather cannot reliably be forecasted, and anyone who's paid attention knows this.
Even just a radar map alone is sufficient to predict what the weather will be like *today*. Predicting a week out, you may as well just use the long-term average (summer will probably be hot).
I own a boat, so pay quite close attention to forecasts as it greatly affects you ability on how you use your boat. I don't keep accurate logs but forecasts are generally useful to me, and I find they are more accurate than not.
But GenX is too small to displace the Boomers so the Boomers retained power.
The big gulf between the generation losing power and the generation gaining power has created a lot of acrimony, especially because the side losing power can't do anything about it.
This post makes no sense and makes all sorts of ridiculous assumptions. For one there is no defined boundary such as "a generation", there are merely approximations mostly based around the large population anomaly caused by WW2. Any other attempt to define people by generation is pointless.
Old people have always complained about young people. Nothing is new here.
No, it is not and I don't think you understand the nature of the problem with Fake news. Believing every news source to be equal is the problem.
No, that is what causes fake news to work in the first place. You think your source is always right and mine is wrong so don't apply your brain.
You should treat all sources with equal cynicism. This is what critical thinking is, evaluating information based on the evidence, not the simply who is saying it.
Tech Dirt has the journalistic integrity of Facebook, I don't need to "check it out" to treat it as such.
And this is why fake news is so popular. People like you refuse to listen to views that don't already agree with your own.
As stated, the link references research from three independent studies, all cited, but that seems to count for nothing unless shares your pre-existing views.
Your statement was that if you don't steal cars you won't die in a locked one.
I merely pointed out that more people die in locked cars that have nothing to do with theft.
So I fail to see how that's relevant to the question.
It's relevant because remotely locking cars could introduce more risk than it reduces, thus your claim of their being no risk of death is provably false.
Slashdot Mirror
I think people will pay far above the basic cost of an item for a few items they consume (like the bread, or Starbucks coffee drinks), but most can't afford to do that for all of the things they consume. So various items can be had in an artisanal way, with people differing about what they are picky about.
That's right, but as long as there's a market for personal service, jobs for humans will still exist (eg training services which have exploded as a profession in the last 20 years). So I'm merely adding weight against the argument that automation will destroy us all.
So do you honestly think $33k per year puts you in the top quartile of Americans?
No idea, but wouldn't dismiss it without further reading. If you take out all the kids and retirees, students, homeless people and prisoners then you'd probably get close to 50% (guessing here). So do half of those earn less than $33k?
Also you not all income distribution is even, and you don't only have to be American, since other rich countries also have poor people.
In any case I'd be happy to see more accurate figures if you have them, but wouldn't dispute it simply because it doesn't sound right.
"They are doing exactly what our nation has asked them to do to protect us. They are the heroes."
Edward Snowden did exactly that and you fucked him in the ass. Why would anyone else bother?
Look people, this sort of tech has been around for decades now.
Exactly. I was too lazy to look up references, but this is nothing new. Anyone who has ridden in an elevator should know that automation didn't end the world.
The folks with all the money realized a few decades ago: there's just too many people
The folks with the money? Ts the same secret society of reptilians that control the world?
If you earn more than $33kyear, then technically you are one of those "folks". When are you going to give up your wealth to someone less fortunate?
Luckily all the high-school dropouts flipping burgers can just go to college and get a degree in liberal arts. Problem solved!
Or just push them into unskilled fields where automation is not easy/wanted. An example I thought of this morning is personal trainers. 30 years ago that job barely existed, and now every second person seems to be one. And people pay for a personal experience because a robot trainer simply would not work.
seems to suggest companies dont give a shit what customers want in an automated form factor.
Automation allows things to be produced more cheaply, for markets that are price sensitive. If you prefer quality, this option will also exist (as they do now).
Example: I went to a hipster bakery on the weekend and the line was down the street to buy $7 loves of sourdough. It cost more, but it was awesome, and many people are happy to pay that for quality.
We're moving in that direction, but we're not there, just yet. I think we'll have a rough couple of years, while the automation steps in.
Why is it the tone of these stories is always that automation is some new thing? This has already been going on for hundreds of years, sure it getting more rapid and will continue to do so, but the automation concept is as old as the first windmill.
When you ask?
It is unfortunate that I see the rising "value" of mass censorship as being heralded as some kind of good thing these days
Wibble, wibble. Regulations are what separates civilised society from the jungle.
so I see this type of tool coming soon to a Freedom near you, gift-wrapped in pretty best-interest paper...
Real freedom means someone stronger and faster than you gets to kill you and take your stuff at will. You think that is a better situation?
Yet the device is not designed for that primarily, so there is not loss of targeted functions. This is a mandatory safety recall for the real risk the model poses.
I argue otherwise. Despite being called a "phone", most people's primary use of their device is not a phone. And even when making calls or messaging, a lot of people use data based apps, not the cellular based comms.
Samsung pays for returns. The phones are disabled at the carrier. Otherwise you can keep your brick/bomb. In civilized countries you are not allowed items that endanger the public with no other function.
My understanding is that the issue is not the phone but the battery, ie the battery is too densely packed so a fire risk. Couldn't Samsung build a smaller capacity battery so that millions of device can still be safely used?
, the 1% who own more net worth than the 99% of the rest of us (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35339475).
1% sounds like the high flyers, but if you're talking global population, you only have to earn $33k/year and you're one of them. Suddenly being a 1%er doesn't sound so evil...
Ah, yes. They'll follow the lead of the other hardware makers. Ones who are doing such a good job, their profits are increasing.
Like the companies on the following list:
Most successful companies eventually fail because they lose focus on their core strengths, just like Apple did the first time around. It would be foolish to believe that even the most successful business in the world today, can't fail tomorrow.
I could be wrong, I am quite a bit, but the lack of headphone jack and airpods seems like a poor move to me. I was actually at a concert last night and noticing all the cables connected to mics and guitars etc, it became apparent that even though wireless technology is quite common, the pros still use cables.
Not all applications of technology are good.
What is C3WM? I just Googled the term and the only relevant result was this post.
Even the quickest of skimming TFA and you will see its talking about passengers using the carpool offerings of lyft and uber to hook up with other passengers, not with the driver.
And if you had've read the whole summary, all 4 lines of it, you would see the quote from the actual policy specifically mention drivers.
All this ranting about uber treating their contractors as employees are completely misplaced in this thread. I guess at this point I should fail to be surprised.
The irony is delicious.
Take a look at the people who put the elected ones there. They aren't shouting "get off my lawn!". Until now.
Of course they are. Maybe you are just young, but nothing here is new. Do you think Lincoln was the establishment candidate? Or Caeser? Khan? Same as it always was, or do you genuinely think history just so happens to have shifted at the same time as you've matured as a person? Do you also think music was the best ever when you were between the ages of 14-24? And young kids these days aren't like when you were young?
You are a robot playing that same old script that has been playing for millennia. "No but this time it's different". No it isn't, in 30 years we'll have this exact same conversation.
If each organization were to play a very costly game of chicken, only Google would have the possibility of walking away from the wreak.
Except the record companies have the law on their side, and your idea is merely created of out fairy dust. Except for that it sounds great.
Depends on when you were born. The Beatles broke up before I was born, so I found out about them through marketing.
If not for marketing, my children would probably not know who they are either (I can tell them, but they wouldn't listen to me). So it does work.
However, many independent artists would leap at the change to sign with a label, since 10% of something is better than 100% of nothing.
THIS. People always make the mistake of looking at high revenues that big-name artists get and dream of doing that themselves.
I've watched enough versions of Dragon's Den (or Shark Tank depending where you live) to know how important this is. So many fools hang on to 100% ownership because they can't figure out that $100% of peanuts is a worse position than 50% of a golden egg.
Nevertheless, they CAN still serve a function, and thus many independent artists still DO sign on.
Which is why they still exist, because they actually work.
The difference here is the old people actually have the political power to do something about it.
Old people have always been in power. Take a look at all the presidents, congresspeople, generals, CEO's, and other leaders over time. All old, all of the time.
Move back a few generations. The "old" generation had children, forming the "middle" generation. Time passes, and the "middle" generation takes political an economic power because it is larger than the "old" one.
It has nothing to do with size. Leadership skills generally take decades to develop, so leaders are always in the 45-65 age range (give or take). It has always been this way, because advanced skills take a long time to accumulate.
The "middle" generation has children. The "Old people" complain about this new generation. But they lack the political and economic power to really fuck them over. Because the "middle" generation outnumbers the "old" generation.
Apart from everyone in political power being old you mean? You might want to check the age of the last two presidential candidates and tell me how this middle generation are supposedly taking over?
I feel like you're just too wound up now to be rational in an attempt to "win" something so good luck convincing someone else.
Interesting that you 'feel' something somehow, and just go with that. Not very rational.
The fact remains, the link I posted has cited research from multiple universities. You chose to ignore the actual information and attack the messenger.
> Weather cannot reliably be forecasted, and anyone who's paid attention knows this.
Even just a radar map alone is sufficient to predict what the weather will be like *today*. Predicting a week out, you may as well just use the long-term average (summer will probably be hot).
I own a boat, so pay quite close attention to forecasts as it greatly affects you ability on how you use your boat. I don't keep accurate logs but forecasts are generally useful to me, and I find they are more accurate than not.
But GenX is too small to displace the Boomers so the Boomers retained power.
The big gulf between the generation losing power and the generation gaining power has created a lot of acrimony, especially because the side losing power can't do anything about it.
This post makes no sense and makes all sorts of ridiculous assumptions. For one there is no defined boundary such as "a generation", there are merely approximations mostly based around the large population anomaly caused by WW2. Any other attempt to define people by generation is pointless.
Old people have always complained about young people. Nothing is new here.
No, it is not and I don't think you understand the nature of the problem with Fake news. Believing every news source to be equal is the problem.
No, that is what causes fake news to work in the first place. You think your source is always right and mine is wrong so don't apply your brain.
You should treat all sources with equal cynicism. This is what critical thinking is, evaluating information based on the evidence, not the simply who is saying it.
Tech Dirt has the journalistic integrity of Facebook, I don't need to "check it out" to treat it as such.
And this is why fake news is so popular. People like you refuse to listen to views that don't already agree with your own.
As stated, the link references research from three independent studies, all cited, but that seems to count for nothing unless shares your pre-existing views.
Which of those stole the car?
Your statement was that if you don't steal cars you won't die in a locked one.
I merely pointed out that more people die in locked cars that have nothing to do with theft.
So I fail to see how that's relevant to the question.
It's relevant because remotely locking cars could introduce more risk than it reduces, thus your claim of their being no risk of death is provably false.