The patriot act has nothing to do with being arrested and detained, you're thinking of something else completely. The patriot act is actually very reasonable.
Can you cite a single instance of someone being arrested and detained indefinitely due to borrowing a 'suspicious' library book? If you're going to commit a terrorist act, you're going to have enough forethought or money to buy a book in a way that it can't be traced back to you.
If you like cameras so much, then why aren't they everywhere. After all, you might be building a bomb in your house.... put them aimed at your porches, in the living room, in the bedrooms, even in the toilet pointing up your ass.... just so you can be 'safe' and society can be 'just'....
The underground is not a private place in your home, it is a public place, you have no expectation of privacy there, anyone can see you, it's just recorded. Even if not by CCTV then by camera phones.
And the CCTV means we now have pictures of the suspects.
One of them's dead already, now for the rest of them...
Can you please explain how the Patriot Act reduces your right to freedom of speech or thought? Being wire-tapped doesn't give you less free speech. Maybe if you're planning a terrorist attack over the phone, but then that's not an essential liberty, not by any reckoning, except maybe Osama Bin Laden's.
As for privacy concerns, remember than thanks to CCTV on the London underground, one of yesterday's attempted suicide bombers was caught and shot dead. If you knee-jerk reactionist Slashbots had your way, he'd be alive and free today, and probably attempting another bombing.
Sacrificing non-essential non-liberties for safety and justice is a good thing. Quoting this Benjamin Franklin person doesn't support your argument either, he's not the Ultimate Authority on Everything.
I wish we had something like the Patriot Act over here.
NASA has signed a multi-hundred dollar ($699) investment with Linux.
Apparently if the/etc/S11/sorg.config hasn't been precisely configured by hand the shuttle fails after 200m and dumps itself back on the launchpad with just a '$' to tell you what went wrong.
It's not compatible with any of the launch facilities so the crew will have to build their own from scratch. But that's OK because it teaches them how it works, and saves them time and money in the long run.
If it gets to the ISS, it can't dock because the shuttle uses an obscure airlock protocol rather than the standard. The shuttle vendors blame the Russians for not opening the specs.
It takes a series of cryptic typed commands just to seperate from the external tank.
Although the control panel is excessively complex, with hundreds of buttons and displays for even un-necessary or obsolete functionality, it's all in a nice transparent blue shade so it's worthwhile, but each operation takes 10 seconds longer than it should.
There's no toilet installed because the shuttle designer disagreed with the licence terms. You see principles come before having a shit.
No-one knows how to work the shuttle because the designers think writing manuals is boring. Instead they replaced the altitude meter with a fading menu.
It looks and acts like a cheap rip-off from a competing space-agency's ship.
That makes me think, why are these launches in the middle of nowhere? Surely to get more interest in space travel, they should launch them near civilisation so people can come and watch them.
Or maybe they should build a space-ship that can take off from a normal airport runway, climb up like a normal jet and use the rocket just for the final stage? Taking off vertically is inefficient, even the Harrier jump-jet uses the runway.
And if it burns up on re-entry, why doesn't it burn up on take-out?
Considering that they got to the Moon thirty-five years ago, space travel seems to have gone BACKWARDS in the meantime. Where have all those billions gone?
We have probes and telescopes, we already know what's down our street. It's just millions of miles away and not very interesting.
Best cast scenario for manned space exploration: months or years in an ugly tin can running down supplies, and any of the crew who haven't starved to death or killed themselves through madness get to float about on a barren rock for a few minutes before going home again. Unlike Neil Armstrong they won't become famous from it because people will be bored of yet another astronaut visiting some obscure moon or asteroid named after an equally-obscure Roman god.
There's nowhere within the range of human travel that offers us anything we don't already get down here. If we need to go somewhere for something, we can send robots. The only thing I can think of that would be of any value would be holidays to the Moon, but that'd fall apart once the novelty wore off and people realise that low-gravity isn't any fun and that you can just as easily live in a dome or small metal hut on Earth.
What the hell are you talking about? You've posted this off-topic anti-console rant twice in this article alone. What's the matter, didn't you get enough bites the first time?
This is a review of a PC game, what the hell does your post have to do with anything?
As for costs, you can get the latest consoles for a quarter of the price of the video cards needed to play these fancy PC games which are all flash and little substance. And who wants to play a FPS with a keyboard with a hundred keys to memorise and unnatural awkward finger placements (asdw is a disaster, you can't lean your fingers on it like with the arrow keys, and moving your middle finger-tip from w to s whilst keeping it suspended above the keyboard the rest of the time is the path to RSI).
And learn to spell. And form paragraphs. And coherent sentences.
In a real military battle, infantry wouldn't be stupid enough to get themselves run over by tanks: they'd watch out for them. I mean, who wouldn't? Tank drivers have less visibility and mobility than people on foot, and in a collision only one side gets squashed.
In a real battle, people wouldn't deliberately get themselves killed so they could punish someone else. Someone who's just been run over has a vested interest so shouldn't be part of the punishment system. You may as well ask a pheasant to judge a poacher.
In a real battle, shit like playing for points wouldn't matter, you either win or lose. So people ruin the game playing for points and then kick out anyone who actually wants to play properly.
Yet again, another otherwise decent game is ruined by 12 year old kids. The Internet should have an age limit.
Why not just use a normal username/password? It could be sent out with every payment of the licence fee. It'd have the advantage of keeping out people who don't pay the licence.
You're joking I presume. Computer programming is a very highly paid job. And the job security is good, you have relatively rare skills that can get you a job anywhere in the world. You're at no more risk for outsourcing than anyone else. The more experience you have, the better jobs you can get, you can't say that about a lot of other industries.
A good post, probably the only useful one in this entire article, and it'll probably be overshadowed by a torrent of +5 'funny' posts and dead-end flamewars.
1. Definitely eat better food. If you feed your body shit, you'll end up a big bag of shit. Cut out the E-numbers and processed foods. Cut out the endless chocolate and crisps and burgers and sugar. Red meat's good. Full of iron and vitamins. Dairy's a great source of vitamins and protein, but stay away from that UHT shite. Learn to cook. Any excuses about not having time/money are bullshit. You have time you're just lazy.
2. That's another good point. I work in a grimy factory full of dirt, I exercise every day, eat fruit every day and I'm NEVER ill. I get the odd cold every other winter or so, that lasts perhaps a day. Don't use those kitchen/bathroom cleaners that brag about killing bacteria, and ignore all that crap about how filthy kitchens are, it's just scaremongering to sell Mr Muscle. I don't use any of that anti-bacterial crap and I never get food poisoning. I rarely fully-cook my meat. Over-cleaning is more dangerous than under-cleaning.
The only times I'm sick is when I drink a lot. And even then it has to be wine, that's the only way I can get enough alcohol down (beer fills me up, spirits irritate my mouth). And when I eat at McDonald's of course. Although I haven't been there in six years (the 'big mac' lasted in my stomach about half an hour, what the fuck do they put in those things?)
How can you have character development when the characters are one-dimensional and not interesting in any way? Programmes like that survive on the jokes. Fry must be the dullest protagonist in TV history. The only decent characters in Futurama were Bender and Zap Branigan. Everyone else could have been cut out.
That itunes shit was popular because an MP3 is easy to download. Who wants to download a gigabyte? Not everyone has broadband, and those who do more often than not have incredibly low caps. Often as low as a gigabyte a month.
Another thing is the difference between sound and vision. The eyes are more sensitive than the ears. You can listen to low-quality Ipod music and it sounds OK, but pictures on a tiny grainy screen are horrible.
It's funny, that when there was talk of banning violent games, Slashdotters were saying they instead the shops should enforce the ratings on the games.
When shops enforce the ratings on the games, Slashdotters say it's a bad thing, and that instead the parents should decide what their kids can play.
When parents stop their kids playing violent computer games, Slashdotters whine, saying that parents shouldn't stop their kids doing things.
Have you ever considered that maybe they had 15,000 more employees than they needed? I think HP should be congratulated for keeping people in jobs for so long even though they didn't need them.
If a company hires a thousand workers that they don't really need, then lays them off a year later, should they be condemned for laying off a thousand people or commended for giving a thousand people a year's wages?
As for your talk about pensions and being there for twenty years, no-one's entitled to a company pension or even a job. In a capitalist society, no company owes you a living, a job is a two-way agreement that either party can end at any time. I'm sure that if you found a better job you wouldn't keep working at your old company out of a sense of loyalty, you'd move to the better arrangement. That's what HP is doing, moving to a better arrangement of fewer employees and thus fewer costs.
Absolutely, and I'm sure if someone raped your daughter you wouldn't complain - you'd be celebrating that they didnt do it to your wife too!
That's a terrible analogy, as bad as I'd expect on this site. A company is employing 150,000 people, that's a hell of a lot. Yet you're complaining because you want them to employ 165,000. That's terrible. The company I work for employs about 900 people, should I criticise them for not employing 990? But what would they need the other 90 for? That doesn't matter, it's evil not to hire 10% more people than you need!
This quickly explains why you get passed up for advancement and pay raises.
There is no advancement or pay rises in my job. You just stay there until you retire. There's no ladder to climb. I've been here a year and they haven't even taught me to drive a fork lift, even though I need it for my job, and it takes like a day.
You're so busy shirking, how do you expect to become the skilled or experienced to handle such a position?
What position? I can't work full time and qualify for a better job.
Believe me, management will notice if you take this approach and put you beyond those lazy management dolts you complain about.
No they won't. What planet are you living on? You've clearly never seen my company. Perhaps you work in a large progressive company rather than a dead stagnant one. And why would they promote a 20 year old when there are people who've been there 20-30 years who know the place better than me and would deserve the job instead?
The worst that can happen is you qualify for a better paying job.
I've got a (slightly) better paying job, and they won't even pay me that, they pay me at my old rate. They don't even pay me a bonus so I'm getting like 25% less than anyone else doing the same job.
I feel more like burning the place down than anything.
What's the matter? Does Google think that if people know how the system really works, it will expose some sort of scam? I thought Google was all about doing 'no evil'? Whatever happened to free speech?
Makes me wonder what's really going on, obviously there's something there which if revealed could harm Google's business model.
Another thing I'm wondering, is that as Google makes a lot of money, they obviously take a cut from the money the advertiser sends to the site owner. In which case, why not cut out the middle man and do business direct with the advertiser?
For example, if an advertiser pays $100 for some amount of clicks, and the website makes $60 from that, then Google would be taking a $40 cut from it. But if the advertiser directly pays the site $80, then they would save $20, and the site would gain $20. So why don't people do that? What do Google actually contribute to earn all those billions?
What in the world ever happened to building a web site to help people, to spread information, and to build a "community." Even more so, when did money become the primary goal of a web structure?
Who says they're building it just for money? Money does a lot of things. For one it pays for your webspace, domain name, and all that crap. Secondly, it pays your costs of living, so you don't have to get a second job, so you can focus on your website fully. Surely the quality's going to be higher when you're spending all your effort on it. Or would you rather website makers put 90% of their effort in their mindless day job?
You're just making enough money to cover your costs. Now imaging you made so much money off it you were making ten times more than you were in your old job, meaning you could quit. Surely you wouldn't turn that down, or is your post thinly-veiled bitterness that someone else's site is more success?
What is happening is workers, reduced in today's "service economy" (subservience economy would be a better term) to little more that soulless drones, are rejecting the labor and property regimes imposed upon them by the ruling classes.
What does that have to do with 'today'? You make it seem like in the history of mankind, workers have been anything more than soulless drones. Let's have a look back at history:
Ancient Egypt: workers are mindless drones building Pyramids. Ancient Rome: workers are mindless drones building aqueducts and roads. Dark Ages: workers are mindless drones rowing boats and invading countries. Middle Ages: workers are mindless drones tilling fields for their feudal lords. Industrial Revolution: workers are mindless drones working in mills and down mines. Modern Day: workers are mindless drones working in offices and shops and factories.
Nothing's changed, this isn't a 'prediction' by Marx, people have shunned work as much as possible since the dawn of time. In fact, these days the lowest rung of workers have the most stimulating work in history. Even punching numbers into a computer or writing programs is more stimulating than digging coal from seams. Stacking shelves is preferable to working in an 19th Century workhouse.
I'm sure pyramid builders did as much as possible to do as little pyramid building as possible. Nothing has changed.
Quit you say? OK I'll quit my job, so give me your e-mail address so I can send the details for you to deposit money into my bank account to pay for all my bills and costs of living.
Unless someone can think of a communist country I can move to where being unemployed doesn't mean you starve to death or live on the streets.
What's wrong with lies and trickery? It's not like the management are doing much work either. At my job I'm going to do the MINIMUM not to get sacked. Nothing more. They don't pay me enough to care about my job, they don't treat me well enough to care about my job, so I'm going to do as little as I can get away with.
The few 'enjoyable' jobs available are taken, and only open to people skilled and experienced in their field, for everyone else it's a choice between a miserable job and the dole queue.
Slashdot Mirror
The patriot act has nothing to do with being arrested and detained, you're thinking of something else completely. The patriot act is actually very reasonable.
Can you cite a single instance of someone being arrested and detained indefinitely due to borrowing a 'suspicious' library book? If you're going to commit a terrorist act, you're going to have enough forethought or money to buy a book in a way that it can't be traced back to you.
If you like cameras so much, then why aren't they everywhere. After all, you might be building a bomb in your house.... put them aimed at your porches, in the living room, in the bedrooms, even in the toilet pointing up your ass.... just so you can be 'safe' and society can be 'just'....
The underground is not a private place in your home, it is a public place, you have no expectation of privacy there, anyone can see you, it's just recorded. Even if not by CCTV then by camera phones.
And the CCTV means we now have pictures of the suspects.
One of them's dead already, now for the rest of them...
Can you please explain how the Patriot Act reduces your right to freedom of speech or thought? Being wire-tapped doesn't give you less free speech. Maybe if you're planning a terrorist attack over the phone, but then that's not an essential liberty, not by any reckoning, except maybe Osama Bin Laden's.
As for privacy concerns, remember than thanks to CCTV on the London underground, one of yesterday's attempted suicide bombers was caught and shot dead. If you knee-jerk reactionist Slashbots had your way, he'd be alive and free today, and probably attempting another bombing.
Sacrificing non-essential non-liberties for safety and justice is a good thing. Quoting this Benjamin Franklin person doesn't support your argument either, he's not the Ultimate Authority on Everything.
I wish we had something like the Patriot Act over here.
NASA has signed a multi-hundred dollar ($699) investment with Linux.
/etc/S11/sorg.config hasn't been precisely configured by hand the shuttle fails after 200m and dumps itself back on the launchpad with just a '$' to tell you what went wrong.
Apparently if the
It's not compatible with any of the launch facilities so the crew will have to build their own from scratch. But that's OK because it teaches them how it works, and saves them time and money in the long run.
If it gets to the ISS, it can't dock because the shuttle uses an obscure airlock protocol rather than the standard. The shuttle vendors blame the Russians for not opening the specs.
It takes a series of cryptic typed commands just to seperate from the external tank.
Although the control panel is excessively complex, with hundreds of buttons and displays for even un-necessary or obsolete functionality, it's all in a nice transparent blue shade so it's worthwhile, but each operation takes 10 seconds longer than it should.
There's no toilet installed because the shuttle designer disagreed with the licence terms. You see principles come before having a shit.
No-one knows how to work the shuttle because the designers think writing manuals is boring. Instead they replaced the altitude meter with a fading menu.
It looks and acts like a cheap rip-off from a competing space-agency's ship.
That makes me think, why are these launches in the middle of nowhere? Surely to get more interest in space travel, they should launch them near civilisation so people can come and watch them.
Or maybe they should build a space-ship that can take off from a normal airport runway, climb up like a normal jet and use the rocket just for the final stage? Taking off vertically is inefficient, even the Harrier jump-jet uses the runway.
And if it burns up on re-entry, why doesn't it burn up on take-out?
Considering that they got to the Moon thirty-five years ago, space travel seems to have gone BACKWARDS in the meantime. Where have all those billions gone?
We have probes and telescopes, we already know what's down our street. It's just millions of miles away and not very interesting.
Best cast scenario for manned space exploration: months or years in an ugly tin can running down supplies, and any of the crew who haven't starved to death or killed themselves through madness get to float about on a barren rock for a few minutes before going home again. Unlike Neil Armstrong they won't become famous from it because people will be bored of yet another astronaut visiting some obscure moon or asteroid named after an equally-obscure Roman god.
There's nowhere within the range of human travel that offers us anything we don't already get down here. If we need to go somewhere for something, we can send robots. The only thing I can think of that would be of any value would be holidays to the Moon, but that'd fall apart once the novelty wore off and people realise that low-gravity isn't any fun and that you can just as easily live in a dome or small metal hut on Earth.
According to all these quotes, it IS buffy in space. Maybe this is one programme which deserved to be cancelled.
I'm hoping this becomes the next fad: Cunts Corner.
Quality site, the sort you could read for hours and be pissing yourself all the way through.
What the hell are you talking about? You've posted this off-topic anti-console rant twice in this article alone. What's the matter, didn't you get enough bites the first time?
This is a review of a PC game, what the hell does your post have to do with anything?
As for costs, you can get the latest consoles for a quarter of the price of the video cards needed to play these fancy PC games which are all flash and little substance. And who wants to play a FPS with a keyboard with a hundred keys to memorise and unnatural awkward finger placements (asdw is a disaster, you can't lean your fingers on it like with the arrow keys, and moving your middle finger-tip from w to s whilst keeping it suspended above the keyboard the rest of the time is the path to RSI).
And learn to spell. And form paragraphs. And coherent sentences.
Nails and a spear.
And if you bothered to read the instructions, you'd realise that it uses angle brackets rather than square ones.
In a real military battle, infantry wouldn't be stupid enough to get themselves run over by tanks: they'd watch out for them. I mean, who wouldn't? Tank drivers have less visibility and mobility than people on foot, and in a collision only one side gets squashed.
In a real battle, people wouldn't deliberately get themselves killed so they could punish someone else. Someone who's just been run over has a vested interest so shouldn't be part of the punishment system. You may as well ask a pheasant to judge a poacher.
In a real battle, shit like playing for points wouldn't matter, you either win or lose. So people ruin the game playing for points and then kick out anyone who actually wants to play properly.
Yet again, another otherwise decent game is ruined by 12 year old kids. The Internet should have an age limit.
Learn to read.
You must be new here.
Why not just use a normal username/password? It could be sent out with every payment of the licence fee. It'd have the advantage of keeping out people who don't pay the licence.
You're joking I presume. Computer programming is a very highly paid job. And the job security is good, you have relatively rare skills that can get you a job anywhere in the world. You're at no more risk for outsourcing than anyone else. The more experience you have, the better jobs you can get, you can't say that about a lot of other industries.
A good post, probably the only useful one in this entire article, and it'll probably be overshadowed by a torrent of +5 'funny' posts and dead-end flamewars.
1. Definitely eat better food. If you feed your body shit, you'll end up a big bag of shit. Cut out the E-numbers and processed foods. Cut out the endless chocolate and crisps and burgers and sugar. Red meat's good. Full of iron and vitamins. Dairy's a great source of vitamins and protein, but stay away from that UHT shite. Learn to cook. Any excuses about not having time/money are bullshit. You have time you're just lazy.
2. That's another good point. I work in a grimy factory full of dirt, I exercise every day, eat fruit every day and I'm NEVER ill. I get the odd cold every other winter or so, that lasts perhaps a day. Don't use those kitchen/bathroom cleaners that brag about killing bacteria, and ignore all that crap about how filthy kitchens are, it's just scaremongering to sell Mr Muscle. I don't use any of that anti-bacterial crap and I never get food poisoning. I rarely fully-cook my meat. Over-cleaning is more dangerous than under-cleaning.
The only times I'm sick is when I drink a lot. And even then it has to be wine, that's the only way I can get enough alcohol down (beer fills me up, spirits irritate my mouth). And when I eat at McDonald's of course. Although I haven't been there in six years (the 'big mac' lasted in my stomach about half an hour, what the fuck do they put in those things?)
How can you have character development when the characters are one-dimensional and not interesting in any way? Programmes like that survive on the jokes. Fry must be the dullest protagonist in TV history. The only decent characters in Futurama were Bender and Zap Branigan. Everyone else could have been cut out.
That itunes shit was popular because an MP3 is easy to download. Who wants to download a gigabyte? Not everyone has broadband, and those who do more often than not have incredibly low caps. Often as low as a gigabyte a month.
Another thing is the difference between sound and vision. The eyes are more sensitive than the ears. You can listen to low-quality Ipod music and it sounds OK, but pictures on a tiny grainy screen are horrible.
It's funny, that when there was talk of banning violent games, Slashdotters were saying they instead the shops should enforce the ratings on the games.
When shops enforce the ratings on the games, Slashdotters say it's a bad thing, and that instead the parents should decide what their kids can play.
When parents stop their kids playing violent computer games, Slashdotters whine, saying that parents shouldn't stop their kids doing things.
Have you ever considered that maybe they had 15,000 more employees than they needed? I think HP should be congratulated for keeping people in jobs for so long even though they didn't need them.
If a company hires a thousand workers that they don't really need, then lays them off a year later, should they be condemned for laying off a thousand people or commended for giving a thousand people a year's wages?
As for your talk about pensions and being there for twenty years, no-one's entitled to a company pension or even a job. In a capitalist society, no company owes you a living, a job is a two-way agreement that either party can end at any time. I'm sure that if you found a better job you wouldn't keep working at your old company out of a sense of loyalty, you'd move to the better arrangement. That's what HP is doing, moving to a better arrangement of fewer employees and thus fewer costs.
Absolutely, and I'm sure if someone raped your daughter you wouldn't complain - you'd be celebrating that they didnt do it to your wife too!
That's a terrible analogy, as bad as I'd expect on this site. A company is employing 150,000 people, that's a hell of a lot. Yet you're complaining because you want them to employ 165,000. That's terrible. The company I work for employs about 900 people, should I criticise them for not employing 990? But what would they need the other 90 for? That doesn't matter, it's evil not to hire 10% more people than you need!
This quickly explains why you get passed up for advancement and pay raises.
There is no advancement or pay rises in my job. You just stay there until you retire. There's no ladder to climb. I've been here a year and they haven't even taught me to drive a fork lift, even though I need it for my job, and it takes like a day.
You're so busy shirking, how do you expect to become the skilled or experienced to handle such a position?
What position? I can't work full time and qualify for a better job.
Believe me, management will notice if you take this approach and put you beyond those lazy management dolts you complain about.
No they won't. What planet are you living on? You've clearly never seen my company. Perhaps you work in a large progressive company rather than a dead stagnant one. And why would they promote a 20 year old when there are people who've been there 20-30 years who know the place better than me and would deserve the job instead?
The worst that can happen is you qualify for a better paying job.
I've got a (slightly) better paying job, and they won't even pay me that, they pay me at my old rate. They don't even pay me a bonus so I'm getting like 25% less than anyone else doing the same job.
I feel more like burning the place down than anything.
What's the matter? Does Google think that if people know how the system really works, it will expose some sort of scam? I thought Google was all about doing 'no evil'? Whatever happened to free speech?
Makes me wonder what's really going on, obviously there's something there which if revealed could harm Google's business model.
Another thing I'm wondering, is that as Google makes a lot of money, they obviously take a cut from the money the advertiser sends to the site owner. In which case, why not cut out the middle man and do business direct with the advertiser?
For example, if an advertiser pays $100 for some amount of clicks, and the website makes $60 from that, then Google would be taking a $40 cut from it. But if the advertiser directly pays the site $80, then they would save $20, and the site would gain $20. So why don't people do that? What do Google actually contribute to earn all those billions?
What in the world ever happened to building a web site to help people, to spread information, and to build a "community." Even more so, when did money become the primary goal of a web structure?
Who says they're building it just for money? Money does a lot of things. For one it pays for your webspace, domain name, and all that crap. Secondly, it pays your costs of living, so you don't have to get a second job, so you can focus on your website fully. Surely the quality's going to be higher when you're spending all your effort on it. Or would you rather website makers put 90% of their effort in their mindless day job?
You're just making enough money to cover your costs. Now imaging you made so much money off it you were making ten times more than you were in your old job, meaning you could quit. Surely you wouldn't turn that down, or is your post thinly-veiled bitterness that someone else's site is more success?
What is happening is workers, reduced in today's "service economy" (subservience economy would be a better term) to little more that soulless drones, are rejecting the labor and property regimes imposed upon them by the ruling classes.
What does that have to do with 'today'? You make it seem like in the history of mankind, workers have been anything more than soulless drones. Let's have a look back at history:
Ancient Egypt: workers are mindless drones building Pyramids.
Ancient Rome: workers are mindless drones building aqueducts and roads.
Dark Ages: workers are mindless drones rowing boats and invading countries.
Middle Ages: workers are mindless drones tilling fields for their feudal lords.
Industrial Revolution: workers are mindless drones working in mills and down mines.
Modern Day: workers are mindless drones working in offices and shops and factories.
Nothing's changed, this isn't a 'prediction' by Marx, people have shunned work as much as possible since the dawn of time. In fact, these days the lowest rung of workers have the most stimulating work in history. Even punching numbers into a computer or writing programs is more stimulating than digging coal from seams. Stacking shelves is preferable to working in an 19th Century workhouse.
I'm sure pyramid builders did as much as possible to do as little pyramid building as possible. Nothing has changed.
Quit you say? OK I'll quit my job, so give me your e-mail address so I can send the details for you to deposit money into my bank account to pay for all my bills and costs of living.
Unless someone can think of a communist country I can move to where being unemployed doesn't mean you starve to death or live on the streets.
What's wrong with lies and trickery? It's not like the management are doing much work either. At my job I'm going to do the MINIMUM not to get sacked. Nothing more. They don't pay me enough to care about my job, they don't treat me well enough to care about my job, so I'm going to do as little as I can get away with.
The few 'enjoyable' jobs available are taken, and only open to people skilled and experienced in their field, for everyone else it's a choice between a miserable job and the dole queue.