Even if a space tourism market exists, there is no guarantee it will survive. A Concorde market existed and it went bust nonetheless.
Concorde wasn't a destination, it was a way to get there. And it was still doing OK until 9/11. AFAIR, it was finally killed when the manufacturer refused to support such old hardware any more.
The only question about space tourism is how fast we can ramp down the cost and ramp up safety. If anyone could go into space for a week for a few thousand dollars with no more risk of dying than a modern cruise liner, there'd be a vast market.
A crew of 6 for an IFV is bizzare. 3 is usually sufficient (commander, driver, gunner) but they contain room for usually 6 soldiers as well for 9 men in the vehicle.
I heard they were going to automate away two of those three crew, but the lefties complained about the loss of jobs, so they kept them and added three more.
You do realize that people aren't, you know, actually, like, supposed to be able to support themselves with the lowest-paid jobs in the country? These are the kind of jobs that used to be done by kids still living at home, not those who expected to make a career and raise a family by saying 'Do you want fries with that?' a thousand times a day?
Exactly. There's no way the Democrats can lose by demanding a minimum wage increase:
1. If people aren't laid off, they'll vote for the Democrats for more wage increases. 2. If they are laid off, they'll vote for the Democrats for more welfare payments.
It's a win-win in the short term, even though it's disastrous for the economy in the long term.
Obamacare has increased the cost of employing people, the usual suspects have been demanding that McDonalds' pay their workers more, and it's clear that the Democrats are going to keep demanding that the government force low-skilled workers out of work... sorry, increase the minimum wage. Any company not looking at automating away low-skilled and unskilled jobs at this point is just silly.
And why, exactly, do you think any of those rich individuals and corporations would remain in America, when you're forcing them to work just so you can steal their money and give it to the people who don't?
Oh, you're planning to build a wall along the border to keep your slaves in the Gulag, right? And require exit visas to leave on a plane?
You and all the other 'guaranteed income' nutters are simply insane.
Yeah, you're right. Why would a company which employs millions of low-skilled workers want to get rid of them just because the government demands they pay them more and has set interest rates near zero so borrowing for capital investment is nearly interest-free?
Totally makes no sense to anyone but EVIL RIGHT-WINGERS.
None of those examples are obvious 'make-work' jobs. They're jobs that haven't been automated away, but they're jobs that need doing for the company to function.
Make-work jobs are jobs which exist soley to employ people, like getting one guy to dig a hole and the other to fill it in. Or where any sane company could have automated the job away, but they refuse to do so just to keep people employed.
I'd guess that self-driving cars will get adopted more this way than suddenly buying a car that can drive itself everywhere perfectly.
Bingo. Rather than the Lords Of Google coming down from the sky with the One True Driverless car that has no steering wheel at all, in the real world we'll start with increasingly driver-free cruise control on highways and progress from there. The average car will probably have hands-free cruise decades before it can drive itself around town.
And is it a stop, or a three way stop, or a four-way stop? I think we even have a two-way stop somewhere in town, where one lane is allowed to continue through without stopping.
Why would anyone in their right mind want to trust a car that's relying on mapping data programmed into it rather than looking out at the real world. Do you think you could drive safely through town by ignoring the road and just turning where your GPS tells you to?
Slashdot Mirror
Even if a space tourism market exists, there is no guarantee it will survive. A Concorde market existed and it went bust nonetheless.
Concorde wasn't a destination, it was a way to get there. And it was still doing OK until 9/11. AFAIR, it was finally killed when the manufacturer refused to support such old hardware any more.
The only question about space tourism is how fast we can ramp down the cost and ramp up safety. If anyone could go into space for a week for a few thousand dollars with no more risk of dying than a modern cruise liner, there'd be a vast market.
131,072 feet, surely?
A crew of 6 for an IFV is bizzare. 3 is usually sufficient (commander, driver, gunner) but they contain room for usually 6 soldiers as well for 9 men in the vehicle.
I heard they were going to automate away two of those three crew, but the lefties complained about the loss of jobs, so they kept them and added three more.
Yeah, because refusing to work with a compatbile chip that's been operating critical hardware in my business for years is so much better.
The GP assumes that there are plenty of openings and demand in those other areas.
Have you heard of this new-fangled thing called 'The Internet'?
Why would a company automate away a $2/hour job if a machine to do the same thing costs $100,000 a year?
You do realize that people aren't, you know, actually, like, supposed to be able to support themselves with the lowest-paid jobs in the country? These are the kind of jobs that used to be done by kids still living at home, not those who expected to make a career and raise a family by saying 'Do you want fries with that?' a thousand times a day?
Exactly. There's no way the Democrats can lose by demanding a minimum wage increase:
1. If people aren't laid off, they'll vote for the Democrats for more wage increases.
2. If they are laid off, they'll vote for the Democrats for more welfare payments.
It's a win-win in the short term, even though it's disastrous for the economy in the long term.
Obamacare has increased the cost of employing people, the usual suspects have been demanding that McDonalds' pay their workers more, and it's clear that the Democrats are going to keep demanding that the government force low-skilled workers out of work... sorry, increase the minimum wage. Any company not looking at automating away low-skilled and unskilled jobs at this point is just silly.
And why, exactly, do you think any of those rich individuals and corporations would remain in America, when you're forcing them to work just so you can steal their money and give it to the people who don't?
Oh, you're planning to build a wall along the border to keep your slaves in the Gulag, right? And require exit visas to leave on a plane?
You and all the other 'guaranteed income' nutters are simply insane.
The sane thing to do would be to institute a minimum basic income.
I think you mean to say 'the insane thing to do'.
Yeah, you're right. Why would a company which employs millions of low-skilled workers want to get rid of them just because the government demands they pay them more and has set interest rates near zero so borrowing for capital investment is nearly interest-free?
Totally makes no sense to anyone but EVIL RIGHT-WINGERS.
There would need to be a significant hike in the minimum wage to prevent turning that into a powderkeg of social unrest.
Uh, no. 'A significant hike in the minimum wage' would mean those jobs would be automated away, too.
Yes, exactly. Their reply to my comment ignored the content of my comment that they were replying to. I don't get it, either.
Still, the 6502 is simple enough that we'll probably be able to 3D print them soon :).
Modern IOS versions randomize the MAC used for passive wifi scans. I'd imagine android is also doing the same.
Android is all about tracking everything you do to send you ads, so I doubt it's doing the same. I should check mine sometime.
None of those examples are obvious 'make-work' jobs. They're jobs that haven't been automated away, but they're jobs that need doing for the company to function.
Make-work jobs are jobs which exist soley to employ people, like getting one guy to dig a hole and the other to fill it in. Or where any sane company could have automated the job away, but they refuse to do so just to keep people employed.
You said 'no (private, US) company is wiling to' do large scale chip fabrication.
So what do you call Intel?
How's video going to help when the robbers are, you know, wearing masks and stuff?
I'd guess that self-driving cars will get adopted more this way than suddenly buying a car that can drive itself everywhere perfectly.
Bingo. Rather than the Lords Of Google coming down from the sky with the One True Driverless car that has no steering wheel at all, in the real world we'll start with increasingly driver-free cruise control on highways and progress from there. The average car will probably have hands-free cruise decades before it can drive itself around town.
But that makes the fanboys sad.
And is it a stop, or a three way stop, or a four-way stop? I think we even have a two-way stop somewhere in town, where one lane is allowed to continue through without stopping.
One thought, though: would driverless cars even need speed limits?
So cities can raise revenue by changing the speed limits every day or two, and catch cars before Google has updated their maps.
Why would anyone in their right mind want to trust a car that's relying on mapping data programmed into it rather than looking out at the real world. Do you think you could drive safely through town by ignoring the road and just turning where your GPS tells you to?
"For our money, the real magic is in having your driverless sports car lap a race track, at speed, without piling into the barriers."
Whereas anyone who's actually thought about the problems knows that's piss-easy compared to driving down an urban street in a snow storm.
Making things is so 20th century. The future is advertising funny cat videos to each other.