Machines replaced slave and later tenant farmer/serf labor in the South. Machines replaced lots of deadly hand labor in coal mines (not entirely but a lot). Machines replaced a line full of low skilled labor on the auto assembly lines with a few high skilled positions.
And what happens to all this low skill labour when they've lost their jobs? They're not clever or educated enough for a skilled profession, and with robots taking up all their jobs, we're going to end up with mass unemployment.
How does that work? Unless the whole population of a country is going to fit into a few square miles, as well as all the necessary places of employment, people will always need to go a long way.
He gave evidence, linked to sources in the mainstream media, government reports, interviews, and other verifiable sources.
That's the point, he gave all the evidence, sources, reports and interviews that were favourable to his viewpoint, and ignored all the ones that didn't. You can prove pretty much anything if you cherry-pick the most convenient information.
The European system is superior, because the cost is borne by the person who initiates the call. I couldn't bear the thought of having to pay everytime someone phones me up to waste my time. If you were low on credit you'd have to turn the phone off.
If the American way is any good, why don't you pay to receive mail?
Why would they want to do a deal with a manufacturer that can't keep up demand? The European mobile phone market is pretty saturated, carriers won't make money on phones that don't exist.
If you don't like one company, you're free to form another one and compete. You can't have several concurrent governments, you're stuck with the one you've got. Companies who don't have any customers and can't balance the books go bust, badly-run government entities can run on indefinitely because their income and existence is guaranteed.
I like my keyboard and am used to it. If I buy a new one, it might have keys all in the wrong places, or those soft mushy keys. My current one is a known quantity, I've had it for years and it's an inch thick in grime.
Somehow, a punishment/rehabilitation that forces this person to be broken and rebuild themselves from scratch is probably best- fixing them as a person, rather than keeping around a broken shell of a person that drags on us all.
I know a punishment that's cheap and effective: corporal punishment. Instead of wasting time with prison, probation, costly appeals etc, just tie them to a frame and give them a hundred of the best across the back. Simple. Do it in public as a disincentive to others. Works in Singapore.
You could argue that eliminating them saves this problem too, but then we're no better than savage animals, and what's the point of doing anything then?
Criminals are themselves savage animals, and deserve to be treated thusly. Seriously, all this politically-correct limp-wristed crap just doesn't work. Whining about how we're evolved from those old barbaric methods doesn't punish crime, it just gives Guardian readers something to talk about.
If you don't think wrongdoing should be punished, then you are not a human being. Obviously you're a more evolved, emotionless, mature person who can take all sorts of suffering at the hands of criminal scum and just turn the other cheek. Or maybe you've just never been the victim of crime and are speaking from a perch.
I submit it is an open question whether or not his "journalistic transformation" of the events creates a First Amendment issue.
No. The government has not passed a law stopping people from blogging at baseball games. The blogger will not be arrested for reporting on the game. The issue here is whether organisers of events have the right to decide who does and does not attend their events on private property*.
Would your analysis be different if he had purchased a ticket and sat down to watch the game with the public, laptop in hand?
The NCAA would have just as much right to throw him out, as would any organiser of any event. The constitution does not protect your right to go to a baseball game.
* Note: Property being publicly owned does not make it public. The Pentagon is a public building, you can't just walk in there and start blogging.
This is basically what is getting at me - if a customer wants to buy a fake shirt or purse or whatever then he should be free to do so. This doesn't really appear to be the case anymore - it seems to be a case of trademarks gone bad.
Actually to me it seems to be a case of trademarks going exactly as they're supposed to. If you want to sell crap clothes, come up with your own name.
It's called retribution. Someone does something bad to you, you get revenge. Anyway, when did we start feeling sorry for criminals? Let them rot, no-one forced them to commit crimes.
One minor question that has been bugging me for a while is this: has Britain totally given up any attempt at cultural influence beyond its own borders? I have for long time considered that the cultural value inherent in BBC's very high quality of programming could be a most potent tool in gendering understanding for "the British way/view" abroad if only the world at large were given ready access to it.
What cultural influence is coming out of the BBC these days? Reality TV, antique/auction shows and repeats? Or the shitty third-tier sports that are all they can afford these days.
Hockey's problem in America isn't that Americans can't see the puck. Americans so the puck just fine during the NHL resurgence back in the 90s. Hockey's problem is that Americans won't return to any sport after a lockout unless the players have salaries greater than the GNP of some small nations (baseball).
I'm pretty sure that hockey's problem is that it just isn't that popular in America outside of a few small pockets. The lockout was just the nail in the coffin. Hockey had a brief surge of popularity in the 80s and mistakenly assumed that made it a major sport.
I think the focus should be on better quality games with less player time. I think 5 - 8 hours is an acceptable amount of single player content,
In which case, it'll take longer to earn the money to buy it, go to the shop, bring it back, and play it, than you'll actually get out of the game. What happened to the days when games could last you for days, weeks, even months? These days a game's over in ten minutes then it's thrown away.
Also, I don't think we need more pills to help rich old white men get it up... but that's what we're getting when greed decides what research is 'worthy.'So until they've cured every disease in the world, there should be no medication to improve people's lives in any way whatsoever? People should not be relieved of the misery of impotence, as long as some poor impoverished person someone is ill. No-one should be better off than the worst person in the world. That's the opinion of plague3106.
Oh, and I'm pretty sure Viagra works on poor black men too.
Slashdot Mirror
That's alright for you then, isn't it. Who cares if millions lose their jobs as long as the intellectual elite keep theirs?
How does that work? Unless the whole population of a country is going to fit into a few square miles, as well as all the necessary places of employment, people will always need to go a long way.
No, disenfranchisement is when your vote isn't counted, not when you deliberately spoil the paper.
Considering you spend a third of your life in bed, I don't see what's wrong with spending a few grand on it.
The European system is superior, because the cost is borne by the person who initiates the call. I couldn't bear the thought of having to pay everytime someone phones me up to waste my time. If you were low on credit you'd have to turn the phone off.
If the American way is any good, why don't you pay to receive mail?
Why would they want to do a deal with a manufacturer that can't keep up demand? The European mobile phone market is pretty saturated, carriers won't make money on phones that don't exist.
The car might be in one piece, but the driver's organs would most likely be jelly from the impact.
If you don't like one company, you're free to form another one and compete. You can't have several concurrent governments, you're stuck with the one you've got. Companies who don't have any customers and can't balance the books go bust, badly-run government entities can run on indefinitely because their income and existence is guaranteed.
So let me get this straight, you're slamming capitalism for giving people too many jobs?
When you say everything can be automated, I think you overestimate the state of robotics.
I like my keyboard and am used to it. If I buy a new one, it might have keys all in the wrong places, or those soft mushy keys. My current one is a known quantity, I've had it for years and it's an inch thick in grime.
And then what if B loses the simulation, but then doesn't surrender?
If you don't think wrongdoing should be punished, then you are not a human being. Obviously you're a more evolved, emotionless, mature person who can take all sorts of suffering at the hands of criminal scum and just turn the other cheek. Or maybe you've just never been the victim of crime and are speaking from a perch.
* Note: Property being publicly owned does not make it public. The Pentagon is a public building, you can't just walk in there and start blogging.
It's called retribution. Someone does something bad to you, you get revenge. Anyway, when did we start feeling sorry for criminals? Let them rot, no-one forced them to commit crimes.
Also, I don't think we need more pills to help rich old white men get it up... but that's what we're getting when greed decides what research is 'worthy.'So until they've cured every disease in the world, there should be no medication to improve people's lives in any way whatsoever? People should not be relieved of the misery of impotence, as long as some poor impoverished person someone is ill. No-one should be better off than the worst person in the world. That's the opinion of plague3106.
Oh, and I'm pretty sure Viagra works on poor black men too.
What's forcing you to use the new updated drivers?