Serial ATA, which this drive is, can also do out-of-order execution of commands which, as you saym, gives a huge performance boost. However, I was told yesterday by someone whou should know that only one manufacturer has yet implemented it. If you are looking of it, check that the drive does it and that your OS supports it. SATA is upwards compatible for ATA so it theoretically needs no software development - but that means you won't be able to take advantage of enhanced features. I would bet that Window$ doesn't yet support it over SATA even if it does over Scsi. What about Linus and gernaral *nix? Can anybody comment?
That is not the point. It is not that Scsi is significantly better as an interface, it is that Scsi has become a "marker" for drives manufactured to a higher spec, which need a higher price. It is more like "business class" in flying - you travel in the same aircraft, but a get a better class of service. it is not in the self-interest of any manufacturer who sells in both marketplaces to devalue the premium-grade scsi marker. Howeve, since WD sells only in the "budget" IDE marketplace, they have an interest in upgrading the image of their brand. What we may be seeing here is the start of the breakdown of an ad-hoc, non-conspiracy-based, "industry standard"
This is WD trying to poach the other guy's market. The traditionally produce low end, low margin drives. They envy the "enterprise classe" drives profit margins. But they know that they can't muscle in with a face-to-face competitor, so thy are tring to get into the gap between traditional "desktop" and "enterprise" market places. Might work.
Faster access time, in two ways: lower access time and faster data transfer. For most applications, the former is far more important, but for data heavy transfers like video, the latter helps more.
Access time is two components: seek time, the time to get the heads to the right track, and rotational latency, the wait until the right bit of oxide spins under the heads. Rotational latency is, on average, half a rotation, so faster spindle speed means lower rotational latency.
Faster spindle speed also moves the bits under the heads faster, so that you get faster data rates on/off the disk once the right bit of oxide has got into position. However, data rates off disk are already so high that for normal file I/O transfers, the data transfer time is 1% of the total transfer time. Of course, for large streaming transfers, the dta transfer time becomes much larger and the savings because of a faster spindle speed more worthwhile.
Scsi drives also do read-ahead. When you do a read, the chances are quite high that you will read the next block soon. If it hasn't got anything better to do, the disk reads the next few blocks into cache. If you do a read, it can respond atartlingly fast. By default, I think the disks come configured for four streams of this to that the odd out-of-sequence access doesn't lose it, but can be configured up to 16 streams - which would need a larger buffer. This obviously only works for workstation type applications, in which relatively few programs are running, rather than database or server type applications.
Hardly. They have to accumulate the total that they *expect* to receive and the total number of coins they have issued and check that the result falls in the error bar for that number of transactions. A one-off (of all users everywhere) statistical table that any mathematician could generate. I.e. if I do 1000 transactions, I expect to be within 1% to 1 Standard Devation. If I am not within (say) 3%, I come after Peppercoin. In a million transactions, I expect to be relatively much closer.
I see a big marketing problem. If so many allegedly intelligent people on/. can misunderstand the system, how the hell are you going to sell it to Joe Public? And Peppercoin's website is useless on this - it sounds like every other snakeoil.com out there.
How is this better than the coin actually being worth 50c and the merchant sending all the coins with their real values to Peppercoin at the end of the [day / month /...]
The number of coins that someone (Peppercoin) has to remember to stop the same coint fraudlently being submitted twice. With your scheme, every coin, no matter how small (and I see 50c as large for micropayments) has to be recorded. With Peppercoin, only paying tokens, by definition worth at least $10, need to be remembered.
If statistics like that didn't work, the insurance industy wouldn't exist. You said "any 500 of those 100,000 tosses earlier". No. The probability of 500 in a row is 0.95^500, which is vanishingly small. Electoral posters reckon that slightly over 1000 truly random questionees yield a standard deviation of 1% in the result - which is good enough for commercial purposes. So you need to sell more than 1000 things ($500 worth) to get very close to your "honest" result (and you are as likely to win as to lose that 1%). It is going to cost youe more than $500 to set up yur web page, delivery system, Peppercoing account, advertising so people know of you....
The consumer gets the coin. The consumer gets the suppliers ID (embedded in the web page) and gets a coin clearly marked "Pay $0.50 to Supplier (possibly)". The pay/nopay is coed inside with the suppliers private key, so that only the supplier and Peppercoin can see if it is valid.
Supplier checks if (a) a valid payment to it and (b)if and only if "a winnew", has not been used before. If so, delivers goods. If not a winner, forget transaction apart from incrmenting "expected gross" to keep Peppercoin honest. If valid, send to peppercoin for payment and note number to prevernt cheats.
The advantage is in the destroying of used tokens.
Digital tokens can be seamlessly copied. So the company that is going to deliver cash (Peppercoing) must keep track of every valid token it has issued (withing a time window that has to be months at least), so that the same token cannot be issued twice.
If tokens are worth $0.01 each, you have a *huge* heap of tokens which has to be tracked. But bu this scheme, worthless tokens can be dumped. Every valid token is worth at least $10. If Peppercoin is taking (say) 1%, they have %0.10 to pay for the cost of storing and revalidating the token. If volume grows because people used it for really micro payments, other schemes crumple under the strain: Peppercoin doesn't. They get a straight $0.10 per transaction.
Obviously, there must be some micropayment below which even they can't be bothered - the cost of issueing a token is probly more than $0.00001. But it lowers the per-transaction break-even point by an order of magnitude or so.
To answer a point further up - yes, the purchaser needs an account with Peppercoin. But people are probably happier with that: pay in fixed amount, thus limiting losses, and monitor it in real time on the web. Pay a $0.50 peppercoin , see your account drop by $0.50. No waiting for the bill to come in, never risking more than you paid in - Joe Sixpack is happy.
No they done't - over the long term. All they have to do is keep statistics. Over >1000 transactions, they should be gettting within 1% of their "due" money. They would pretty soon see of Peppercoin was ripping them off and put them out of business by smearing their name. Statistics rule.
If you take it to its extreme, Object Oriented Programming can be seen to be declarative. You state that "their is an object which has the following behaviours". From that Object you derive more sophisticated Objects and describe their behaviours. If you get the Objects right, the bits of imperative code in the implementation are "trivially" simple. So that when you get to the end, the "main program" simply instantiates a single object. The program itself does not comne from an explicit order but as a consequence of instantiating the main program object, which instantiates other objects it needs, which... and so on.
You misunderstand the way Open Source works. Linux actually has perfect democracy - *anybody* can take charge. Anybody - even you - could fork the kernel any time you wanted to. Of course, until you show why your stream is better than the main stream, you'll be pretty lonely on your fork.
The only reason that Linus is still the controlling authority on the Linux kernel is that he is doing it pretty well. And he isn't without advice from others - there are hundreds of people only too willing to favour him with their advice.
Every functioning organisation needs a chief executive - someone who makes the final decision. Even when you have executive committees - and, informally, most Open Source projects do - someone still has to make the final decision, to jusdge what the consensus actually is.
Anybody can "call an election" on an Open Source project any time, by proposing a fork. That is much closer to perfect democracy, it seems to me, than one where you only choosw the Chief Exec every few years.
As it is, Linux is a roaring success with Linus in charge. It ain't broke. don't fix it.
On the contrary, in the UK at least. "Visual Impairment" means any level of impairment to the eyes which results in impaired ability to perform normal operations even with appropriate glasses or lenses. "Blind" is a an undefined word which m,eans different things to different people. To some it means totally blind, while to others it might mean only enough impairment to prevent driving.
To some extent, "Visuual impairment" is context sensitive. In the context of driving, it means with insufficient vision to drive (even with glasses). In the context of computer screens, it means uneable easily to read the screen - which is probably a greater level of impairment than for driving. What the term does is that the empairment cannot be fixed by glasses.
Surprisingly few "blind" people have no sensitivity at all to light - I think it is l;ess than 5%.
I got that from the UK technical manager of one of the main manufacturers. The specs read higher (buffer size, avarage access). When scsi first came out, the cost difference in the interface was about $20. Now, according to a different manufacturers technical rep, the difference is sub-$1. My company buys Scsi drives in quantity, so the tech reps speak directly to us, and I write the scsi drivers, so I think I know what I am talking about.
For 99% of users, data integrity is the holy grail and everything else comes a distant second. I wish manufacturers would remember that.
Everybody says that with their mouth, but not with their wallets. When it comes to buying disks, people lok at Gb and average access time, and by the drive with the best combination of these. A few may worry about heat and noise. But people don't actually pay for reliability.
People who actually want reliability buy Scsi. The premium cost of Scsi drives is nothing to do with the interfaces - it is enchanced performance and reliablity. Check the warranty lives - IDE down from 3 years to 1 year, Scsi steady at 5 years. The manufacturers are trying to tell you something.
I think the 15 way connector is the *only* connector i.e. both power and signal. And it is desigend to be suitable for either cable connection, as currently, and backplane for hot-pluggable (raids, mirrors). If you are going to have one new connector, for the signals, why not make that new connector do everything.
This just shows that the Capitalist model works. Altavista did well by outperforming previous search engines, but then got idle and tried to milk the market instead of improving the model. Google cam out of nowhere and knocked AV out by being in all ways better. If anybody beats Google, they can only do so by being better - which is great for us users. Whatever happens, we win. If someone outperforms Google - we win. If Google keeps ahead of the competition by providing a better service - we win.
Actually, I think the Google management (including techies) are pretty smart. I don't think they ever expeced to rule the world. If they can remain the top search engine, but not the only one, they will sitll be very profitable.
I know it is terribly predictable to bash Microsoft on/., but this focusses on the problem I have with them. M$ appears to want to be the *only* provider in the fields it operates in - OS, Office software and all the others it is stepping into. Apple, Sun want to be the biggest, but not the only, supplier in their fields. For the world at large (rather than the companies concerned), the latter is far more healthy.
So a system in which Google has a number of hungry competitors on its heels is excellent for all of us. Particularly, if Google were to manipulate Pagerank for devious reasons (not saying thay do), you would have somewhere else to go.
But look at fighter planes, where the military do *lots* of ergonomic testing and have a real incentive to get it as good as it gets. Yes, they still have rudder pedals, but they are hardly used in most flying modes. On the other hand, the joystick is covered with buttons - not only throttle and steering, but targeting computer, weapons selection, fire button, communications... You can bet that they have tries a lot of alternatives, so my guess is that hand control goes pretty well.
If you have published your source code, than anything patentable (as opposed to copyrightable) is already in the public domain, and hence cannot be patented. This precludes you from patenting it, but it also precludes ayone else from doing so unless they can prove that they were using the idea before you published. So if you are truly open source, rather than free distribution of executables, you have done everything you could do simply by going open source.
What actually constitutes publication is perhaps a more difficult question, and IANAL. But I would have thought that a SourceForge project would be easily enough for the courts to accept as publication.
"We" is all of us - "the economy" - the whole of society - everybody. And I made no remark, for or against, artistic or creative work. I could hardly give an exhaustive list of professions in a single answer. I agree that, as our material needs are more and more cheaply fulfilled, we are more and more likely be willing to pay for creative rather than "productive" work.
This technology will probably be reserved for "high-end" stuff.
Not for high end stuff, or for low end stuff, but for stuff for which transport and stocking costs are a high proportion of the price. Suppose you need a spare part for your low volume, imported, car. If your dealer wants to give good service, they have to hold thousands of such parts for years, selling them only occasionally - and will therefore charge accordingly. Alternatively, they may not stock it, so your car is off the road for several days while the part is expensively flown in. And after a while, the original manufacturer does a last-time build of the part, and if you need any after they have run out - tough, that car may have to be scrapped. With an "object printer", you can get a one-off done for you within minutes, without the wait.
Expect this to be used for high-premium customisation as well. Back to the car, suppose you want a custom light cluster (or "limited edition"). Draw it up on the CAD system, print it out - don't spend $20000 on tooling. And when you back into a wall five years later - print another, don't hunt for the tooling and then do a batch of a hundred, throwing away 90 because they don't sell (after occupying warehouse for ten years),
The process of replacing labour has beeen going in for centuries already - as a previous poster said, since at least the Spinnning Jenny. At that time, most use of human labour was simply as a brute force machine - a source of muscle power. The canals and earleir railways were built by tens of thousands of men with shovels. Later, we invented power machinery to dig for us. Did those men go away? No - some became controllers for the power machines, we build more railways etc. because they were cheaper, and some got to run the railways, and the factories the railways made possible and...
Virtually *nothing* we do nowadays would be recognised as "work" by the standards of 1800. As people are freed from one class of labour, we find another use for them. Some of it is pretty menial - burger flipping. Some of it is pretty complex - network administration. But if we free up people from one sort of labour, we will invent another sort with which we can usefully employ skills (new skills) to make our lives better - and pay the workers.
While I am relaxed about the long term solutions, there are transitional problems if things change to fast. If this new gadget were to come in overnight, the transitional problems would be appalling. But if it phases in slowly - as it will do, because initial implementations will be expensive, and the designs won't be transferred, we can easily soak up the change.
Mind you, it just increases the lead of the developed world against the poor countries. Doesn't hurt the poor countries, just widens the gap - and hence increases the resentment of the poor at the wealth of others.
Slashdot Mirror
Serial ATA, which this drive is, can also do out-of-order execution of commands which, as you saym, gives a huge performance boost. However, I was told yesterday by someone whou should know that only one manufacturer has yet implemented it. If you are looking of it, check that the drive does it and that your OS supports it. SATA is upwards compatible for ATA so it theoretically needs no software development - but that means you won't be able to take advantage of enhanced features. I would bet that Window$ doesn't yet support it over SATA even if it does over Scsi. What about Linus and gernaral *nix? Can anybody comment?
That is not the point. It is not that Scsi is significantly better as an interface, it is that Scsi has become a "marker" for drives manufactured to a higher spec, which need a higher price. It is more like "business class" in flying - you travel in the same aircraft, but a get a better class of service. it is not in the self-interest of any manufacturer who sells in both marketplaces to devalue the premium-grade scsi marker. Howeve, since WD sells only in the "budget" IDE marketplace, they have an interest in upgrading the image of their brand. What we may be seeing here is the start of the breakdown of an ad-hoc, non-conspiracy-based, "industry standard"
This is WD trying to poach the other guy's market. The traditionally produce low end, low margin drives. They envy the "enterprise classe" drives profit margins. But they know that they can't muscle in with a face-to-face competitor, so thy are tring to get into the gap between traditional "desktop" and "enterprise" market places. Might work.
Faster access time, in two ways: lower access time and faster data transfer. For most applications, the former is far more important, but for data heavy transfers like video, the latter helps more.
Access time is two components: seek time, the time to get the heads to the right track, and rotational latency, the wait until the right bit of oxide spins under the heads. Rotational latency is, on average, half a rotation, so faster spindle speed means lower rotational latency.
Faster spindle speed also moves the bits under the heads faster, so that you get faster data rates on/off the disk once the right bit of oxide has got into position. However, data rates off disk are already so high that for normal file I/O transfers, the data transfer time is 1% of the total transfer time. Of course, for large streaming transfers, the dta transfer time becomes much larger and the savings because of a faster spindle speed more worthwhile.
Scsi drives also do read-ahead. When you do a read, the chances are quite high that you will read the next block soon. If it hasn't got anything better to do, the disk reads the next few blocks into cache. If you do a read, it can respond atartlingly fast. By default, I think the disks come configured for four streams of this to that the odd out-of-sequence access doesn't lose it, but can be configured up to 16 streams - which would need a larger buffer. This obviously only works for workstation type applications, in which relatively few programs are running, rather than database or server type applications.
Hardly. They have to accumulate the total that they *expect* to receive and the total number of coins they have issued and check that the result falls in the error bar for that number of transactions. A one-off (of all users everywhere) statistical table that any mathematician could generate. I.e. if I do 1000 transactions, I expect to be within 1% to 1 Standard Devation. If I am not within (say) 3%, I come after Peppercoin. In a million transactions, I expect to be relatively much closer.
I see a big marketing problem. If so many allegedly intelligent people on /. can misunderstand the system, how the hell are you going to sell it to Joe Public? And Peppercoin's website is useless on this - it sounds like every other snakeoil.com out there.
The number of coins that someone (Peppercoin) has to remember to stop the same coint fraudlently being submitted twice. With your scheme, every coin, no matter how small (and I see 50c as large for micropayments) has to be recorded. With Peppercoin, only paying tokens, by definition worth at least $10, need to be remembered.
If statistics like that didn't work, the insurance industy wouldn't exist. You said "any 500 of those 100,000 tosses earlier". No. The probability of 500 in a row is 0.95^500, which is vanishingly small. Electoral posters reckon that slightly over 1000 truly random questionees yield a standard deviation of 1% in the result - which is good enough for commercial purposes. So you need to sell more than 1000 things ($500 worth) to get very close to your "honest" result (and you are as likely to win as to lose that 1%). It is going to cost youe more than $500 to set up yur web page, delivery system, Peppercoing account, advertising so people know of you....
The consumer gets the coin. The consumer gets the suppliers ID (embedded in the web page) and gets a coin clearly marked "Pay $0.50 to Supplier (possibly)". The pay/nopay is coed inside with the suppliers private key, so that only the supplier and Peppercoin can see if it is valid.
Supplier checks if (a) a valid payment to it and (b)if and only if "a winnew", has not been used before. If so, delivers goods. If not a winner, forget transaction apart from incrmenting "expected gross" to keep Peppercoin honest. If valid, send to peppercoin for payment and note number to prevernt cheats.
The advantage is in the destroying of used tokens.
Digital tokens can be seamlessly copied. So the company that is going to deliver cash (Peppercoing) must keep track of every valid token it has issued (withing a time window that has to be months at least), so that the same token cannot be issued twice.
If tokens are worth $0.01 each, you have a *huge* heap of tokens which has to be tracked. But bu this scheme, worthless tokens can be dumped. Every valid token is worth at least $10. If Peppercoin is taking (say) 1%, they have %0.10 to pay for the cost of storing and revalidating the token. If volume grows because people used it for really micro payments, other schemes crumple under the strain: Peppercoin doesn't. They get a straight $0.10 per transaction.
Obviously, there must be some micropayment below which even they can't be bothered - the cost of issueing a token is probly more than $0.00001. But it lowers the per-transaction break-even point by an order of magnitude or so.
To answer a point further up - yes, the purchaser needs an account with Peppercoin. But people are probably happier with that: pay in fixed amount, thus limiting losses, and monitor it in real time on the web. Pay a $0.50 peppercoin , see your account drop by $0.50. No waiting for the bill to come in, never risking more than you paid in - Joe Sixpack is happy.
No they done't - over the long term. All they have to do is keep statistics. Over >1000 transactions, they should be gettting within 1% of their "due" money. They would pretty soon see of Peppercoin was ripping them off and put them out of business by smearing their name. Statistics rule.
If you take it to its extreme, Object Oriented Programming can be seen to be declarative. You state that "their is an object which has the following behaviours". From that Object you derive more sophisticated Objects and describe their behaviours. If you get the Objects right, the bits of imperative code in the implementation are "trivially" simple. So that when you get to the end, the "main program" simply instantiates a single object. The program itself does not comne from an explicit order but as a consequence of instantiating the main program object, which instantiates other objects it needs, which... and so on.
You misunderstand the way Open Source works. Linux actually has perfect democracy - *anybody* can take charge. Anybody - even you - could fork the kernel any time you wanted to. Of course, until you show why your stream is better than the main stream, you'll be pretty lonely on your fork.
The only reason that Linus is still the controlling authority on the Linux kernel is that he is doing it pretty well. And he isn't without advice from others - there are hundreds of people only too willing to favour him with their advice.
Every functioning organisation needs a chief executive - someone who makes the final decision. Even when you have executive committees - and, informally, most Open Source projects do - someone still has to make the final decision, to jusdge what the consensus actually is.
Anybody can "call an election" on an Open Source project any time, by proposing a fork. That is much closer to perfect democracy, it seems to me, than one where you only choosw the Chief Exec every few years.
As it is, Linux is a roaring success with Linus in charge. It ain't broke. don't fix it.
On the contrary, in the UK at least. "Visual Impairment" means any level of impairment to the eyes which results in impaired ability to perform normal operations even with appropriate glasses or lenses. "Blind" is a an undefined word which m,eans different things to different people. To some it means totally blind, while to others it might mean only enough impairment to prevent driving.
To some extent, "Visuual impairment" is context sensitive. In the context of driving, it means with insufficient vision to drive (even with glasses). In the context of computer screens, it means uneable easily to read the screen - which is probably a greater level of impairment than for driving. What the term does is that the empairment cannot be fixed by glasses.
Surprisingly few "blind" people have no sensitivity at all to light - I think it is l;ess than 5%.
I got that from the UK technical manager of one of the main manufacturers. The specs read higher (buffer size, avarage access). When scsi first came out, the cost difference in the interface was about $20. Now, according to a different manufacturers technical rep, the difference is sub-$1. My company buys Scsi drives in quantity, so the tech reps speak directly to us, and I write the scsi drivers, so I think I know what I am talking about.
Everybody says that with their mouth, but not with their wallets. When it comes to buying disks, people lok at Gb and average access time, and by the drive with the best combination of these. A few may worry about heat and noise. But people don't actually pay for reliability.
People who actually want reliability buy Scsi. The premium cost of Scsi drives is nothing to do with the interfaces - it is enchanced performance and reliablity. Check the warranty lives - IDE down from 3 years to 1 year, Scsi steady at 5 years. The manufacturers are trying to tell you something.
I think the 15 way connector is the *only* connector i.e. both power and signal. And it is desigend to be suitable for either cable connection, as currently, and backplane for hot-pluggable (raids, mirrors). If you are going to have one new connector, for the signals, why not make that new connector do everything.
General Plantain Licence or Banana Source Disclosure?
This just shows that the Capitalist model works. Altavista did well by outperforming previous search engines, but then got idle and tried to milk the market instead of improving the model. Google cam out of nowhere and knocked AV out by being in all ways better. If anybody beats Google, they can only do so by being better - which is great for us users. Whatever happens, we win. If someone outperforms Google - we win. If Google keeps ahead of the competition by providing a better service - we win.
/., but this focusses on the problem I have with them. M$ appears to want to be the *only* provider in the fields it operates in - OS, Office software and all the others it is stepping into. Apple, Sun want to be the biggest, but not the only, supplier in their fields. For the world at large (rather than the companies concerned), the latter is far more healthy.
Actually, I think the Google management (including techies) are pretty smart. I don't think they ever expeced to rule the world. If they can remain the top search engine, but not the only one, they will sitll be very profitable.
I know it is terribly predictable to bash Microsoft on
So a system in which Google has a number of hungry competitors on its heels is excellent for all of us. Particularly, if Google were to manipulate Pagerank for devious reasons (not saying thay do), you would have somewhere else to go.
But look at fighter planes, where the military do *lots* of ergonomic testing and have a real incentive to get it as good as it gets. Yes, they still have rudder pedals, but they are hardly used in most flying modes. On the other hand, the joystick is covered with buttons - not only throttle and steering, but targeting computer, weapons selection, fire button, communications... You can bet that they have tries a lot of alternatives, so my guess is that hand control goes pretty well.
If you have published your source code, than anything patentable (as opposed to copyrightable) is already in the public domain, and hence cannot be patented. This precludes you from patenting it, but it also precludes ayone else from doing so unless they can prove that they were using the idea before you published. So if you are truly open source, rather than free distribution of executables, you have done everything you could do simply by going open source.
What actually constitutes publication is perhaps a more difficult question, and IANAL. But I would have thought that a SourceForge project would be easily enough for the courts to accept as publication.
"We" is all of us - "the economy" - the whole of society - everybody. And I made no remark, for or against, artistic or creative work. I could hardly give an exhaustive list of professions in a single answer. I agree that, as our material needs are more and more cheaply fulfilled, we are more and more likely be willing to pay for creative rather than "productive" work.
Not for high end stuff, or for low end stuff, but for stuff for which transport and stocking costs are a high proportion of the price. Suppose you need a spare part for your low volume, imported, car. If your dealer wants to give good service, they have to hold thousands of such parts for years, selling them only occasionally - and will therefore charge accordingly. Alternatively, they may not stock it, so your car is off the road for several days while the part is expensively flown in. And after a while, the original manufacturer does a last-time build of the part, and if you need any after they have run out - tough, that car may have to be scrapped. With an "object printer", you can get a one-off done for you within minutes, without the wait.
Expect this to be used for high-premium customisation as well. Back to the car, suppose you want a custom light cluster (or "limited edition"). Draw it up on the CAD system, print it out - don't spend $20000 on tooling. And when you back into a wall five years later - print another, don't hunt for the tooling and then do a batch of a hundred, throwing away 90 because they don't sell (after occupying warehouse for ten years),
The process of replacing labour has beeen going in for centuries already - as a previous poster said, since at least the Spinnning Jenny. At that time, most use of human labour was simply as a brute force machine - a source of muscle power. The canals and earleir railways were built by tens of thousands of men with shovels. Later, we invented power machinery to dig for us. Did those men go away? No - some became controllers for the power machines, we build more railways etc. because they were cheaper, and some got to run the railways, and the factories the railways made possible and...
Virtually *nothing* we do nowadays would be recognised as "work" by the standards of 1800. As people are freed from one class of labour, we find another use for them. Some of it is pretty menial - burger flipping. Some of it is pretty complex - network administration. But if we free up people from one sort of labour, we will invent another sort with which we can usefully employ skills (new skills) to make our lives better - and pay the workers.
While I am relaxed about the long term solutions, there are transitional problems if things change to fast. If this new gadget were to come in overnight, the transitional problems would be appalling. But if it phases in slowly - as it will do, because initial implementations will be expensive, and the designs won't be transferred, we can easily soak up the change.
Mind you, it just increases the lead of the developed world against the poor countries. Doesn't hurt the poor countries, just widens the gap - and hence increases the resentment of the poor at the wealth of others.