We're discussing a society in which it's cheaper to automate tasks with robots than to have humans perform them.
Your premise does not fit the narrative.
I don't see anything in the discussion that:
1) implies a complete elimination of the workforce (meaning my contribution still fits), and
2) implies that the GP's argument (someone must be willing to maintain the robots) is an invalid concern. It is relevant and it can be handled by a funded job.
Why do you insist on thinking that all jobs will be handled by robots? Certainly there will be instances where robots are not always cheaper.
One more comment that I should have included in the initial response: The robot does nothing for free. There is a cost there (a point originally established by the GP).
Yes I know what we're discussing. You seem to presume the solution I provide is one I subscribe to, which is wrong. I simple provided a potential solution.
To respond to the important part of your question, who said everyone can afford the robots? I'm sure there are plenty of situations where someone would decide that the amount of rubbish needing shoveling is not worth the cost of the robot, thus enabling an opportunity for work.
I agree that people would find something to do in their own terms. I wonder though what would happen to the less desirable jobs. If everyone becomes a poet, who will clean and maintain the robots that deal with waste? It is robots all the way down?
The easy solution to that is to keep money around via a standard income. Anyone who wants to bring home more than the standard income is welcome to take a job doing something, such as shoveling rubbish.
Yes, someone will take that job. There will always be people who want more, and they will take the means necessary to obtain it. If they need more money to buy something and the rubbish clearing job provides that money, they will do it. Not many will rush to that job but someone will do it. And if there's no standard time requirement to do it, they'll do it as fast as possible too.
It'd be difficult to quantify, but I suspect that there is a significant percentage of people who were going to get another PC, but decided to wait rather than struggle with Win8.
Doubtful. There's nothing sexy about a laptop, whereas Apple and Google (via Samsung and others) have made tablets the go-to computing device of the moment. Win8 is barely moving the needle on this decision; it is all being decided by form factor.
As someone who acts similarly (clean desktop except for temporary storage of files I need for current project reasons), I'd wager we are the minority. If the general user wanted a clean desktop they would manage it, but I imagine most care more about convenience than aesthetics. If convenience means a cluttered desktop, I just do not see how that defends the idea that the start menu is seen as a good solution.
The installers offer to put a shortcut on your desktop and in the quick launch menu because they want to be important.
So you acknowledge that visibility trumps being lost in the sea of shit that is the alphabetical folder structure of the start menu? That doesn't strike me as a sign that the start menu working well.
One, assuming their solution was undesirable, which it wasn't as it worked quite well and the start menu has become the most copied interface element after the window and the close gadget.
Based on the number of people I see with an entire desktop full of shortcuts and files, I refuse to believe that most people feel the start menu works well. It sucks as a solution and most people seemingly avoid it (to the point that most program installers offer to put a shortcut on your desktop, which is an obvious sign that everyone acknowledges the start menu is a pit of doom).
Programmers are the easy part to handle. It's the VW Bus full of people that have to manage all the bullshit related to government projects that you need to worry about.
Meanwhile, I guess most of the US movie goers where expecting a very serious, true-to-the-source adaptation of the books, and probably disliked that not only wasn't this movie dead-serious about the book, the movie even went to criticize and make a joke about the book's theme.
Or some moviegoers just thought it was a bad movie.
The message was smart, but the sets, acting, and much of the plot was mediocre fluff at best and downright terrible at worst. Having watched it again a year or so ago, I definitely felt more appreciation for how it labeled the political and military complex. But overall it was still a mediocre movie at best.
I believe when I read the story about the 2006 run that six months was the longest statute at that time. Not sure if it is the same now, although I'd imagine it isn't longer based on this tone of this story.
It's competing with 5-hour coast-to-coast air travel.
Not to mention right-of-way on available land. I'll leave it as an exercise to readers to find out how annoying that would be across the vast number of states, counties, and cities involved in such planning.
What matters is that they are marking money hand over fist. No matter how you try to make it sound bad, they are bringing in profits faster than anyone.
THAT is what ACTUALLY matters.
This in addition to the fact that Apple has customers coming back again and again to refresh their devices when the new product cycle comes out.
Can all of the Android manufacturers claim to see such retention in their existing base?
We're talking about the country that once prided itself on getting shit done. What happened to those folks? Did principles die away with them?
They got their shit done and retired to a nice pension. When the spineless paper-pushers came around asking if they'd like to contribute some more, the get-shit-done crowd gave them the finger and told them to get off the lawn.
The real take from this entire story
on
How Safe Is Cycling?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
It is up to you... to anticipate the other guy doing something stupid and unexpected. They surely will.
This is the only rule you need to live by to drive, cycle, run, walk, or travel any road safely. Travel under the expectation that you need to anticipate someone else's dumb move and you will find yourself prepared for the majority of situations (note that I didn't say all of them, because someone out there will find a way to blow your mind one day).
Slashdot Mirror
...we would have double the amount of coders and an increase in availability of coded products and software...
Woohoo, double the amount of shitty code!
Regardless of how much it costs to run the robot, it's presumed that doing so is still cheaper than paying a human to perform the same task.
Your presumption assumes that ALL tasks will ALWAYS be handled by robots. I don't see that realistically happening.
We're discussing a society in which it's cheaper to automate tasks with robots than to have humans perform them.
Your premise does not fit the narrative.
I don't see anything in the discussion that:
1) implies a complete elimination of the workforce (meaning my contribution still fits), and
2) implies that the GP's argument (someone must be willing to maintain the robots) is an invalid concern. It is relevant and it can be handled by a funded job.
Why do you insist on thinking that all jobs will be handled by robots? Certainly there will be instances where robots are not always cheaper.
One more comment that I should have included in the initial response: The robot does nothing for free. There is a cost there (a point originally established by the GP).
Yes I know what we're discussing. You seem to presume the solution I provide is one I subscribe to, which is wrong. I simple provided a potential solution.
To respond to the important part of your question, who said everyone can afford the robots? I'm sure there are plenty of situations where someone would decide that the amount of rubbish needing shoveling is not worth the cost of the robot, thus enabling an opportunity for work.
I agree that people would find something to do in their own terms. I wonder though what would happen to the less desirable jobs. If everyone becomes a poet, who will clean and maintain the robots that deal with waste? It is robots all the way down?
The easy solution to that is to keep money around via a standard income. Anyone who wants to bring home more than the standard income is welcome to take a job doing something, such as shoveling rubbish.
Yes, someone will take that job. There will always be people who want more, and they will take the means necessary to obtain it. If they need more money to buy something and the rubbish clearing job provides that money, they will do it. Not many will rush to that job but someone will do it. And if there's no standard time requirement to do it, they'll do it as fast as possible too.
I have not, but I wouldn't mind getting behind the wheel of one.
It'd be difficult to quantify, but I suspect that there is a significant percentage of people who were going to get another PC, but decided to wait rather than struggle with Win8.
Doubtful. There's nothing sexy about a laptop, whereas Apple and Google (via Samsung and others) have made tablets the go-to computing device of the moment. Win8 is barely moving the needle on this decision; it is all being decided by form factor.
As someone who acts similarly (clean desktop except for temporary storage of files I need for current project reasons), I'd wager we are the minority. If the general user wanted a clean desktop they would manage it, but I imagine most care more about convenience than aesthetics. If convenience means a cluttered desktop, I just do not see how that defends the idea that the start menu is seen as a good solution.
The installers offer to put a shortcut on your desktop and in the quick launch menu because they want to be important.
So you acknowledge that visibility trumps being lost in the sea of shit that is the alphabetical folder structure of the start menu? That doesn't strike me as a sign that the start menu working well.
One, assuming their solution was undesirable, which it wasn't as it worked quite well and the start menu has become the most copied interface element after the window and the close gadget.
Based on the number of people I see with an entire desktop full of shortcuts and files, I refuse to believe that most people feel the start menu works well. It sucks as a solution and most people seemingly avoid it (to the point that most program installers offer to put a shortcut on your desktop, which is an obvious sign that everyone acknowledges the start menu is a pit of doom).
There's a pretty significant difference between, "locate & pack," and, "move package from point A to B."
If your police force needs cash from tickets then they are under funded or over spending or both.
This might be the wisest statement that I've ever read on Slashdot.
He was correct using Bug. I used Bus to imply that you need a bigger vehicle because more folks are involved with the administrative crap.
Programmers are the easy part to handle. It's the VW Bus full of people that have to manage all the bullshit related to government projects that you need to worry about.
Meanwhile, I guess most of the US movie goers where expecting a very serious, true-to-the-source adaptation of the books, and probably disliked that not only wasn't this movie dead-serious about the book, the movie even went to criticize and make a joke about the book's theme.
Or some moviegoers just thought it was a bad movie.
The message was smart, but the sets, acting, and much of the plot was mediocre fluff at best and downright terrible at worst. Having watched it again a year or so ago, I definitely felt more appreciation for how it labeled the political and military complex. But overall it was still a mediocre movie at best.
Contrary to what you think, they are pissed about both, and more so about the US population because it consists of their voters ...
You mean the same US population that had access to stories like this, http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/, well over a year prior to Snowden yet still managed to be ignorant?
Nah, I don't think the government is that worried about the general populous.
Although in this case, that's obviously not the case (since the time stamp is only a couple of weeks old).
I believe when I read the story about the 2006 run that six months was the longest statute at that time. Not sure if it is the same now, although I'd imagine it isn't longer based on this tone of this story.
All I'm seeing that statement advocate for is the idea that we need better public transportation in America for those incompetents :P
Typically these guys don't go public with Cannonball Run details until after all Statute of Limitations have passed.
What matters is that they are marking money hand over fist. No matter how you try to make it sound bad, they are bringing in profits faster than anyone.
THAT is what ACTUALLY matters.
This in addition to the fact that Apple has customers coming back again and again to refresh their devices when the new product cycle comes out.
Can all of the Android manufacturers claim to see such retention in their existing base?
We're talking about the country that once prided itself on getting shit done. What happened to those folks? Did principles die away with them?
They got their shit done and retired to a nice pension. When the spineless paper-pushers came around asking if they'd like to contribute some more, the get-shit-done crowd gave them the finger and told them to get off the lawn.
It is up to you ... to anticipate the other guy doing something stupid and unexpected. They surely will.
This is the only rule you need to live by to drive, cycle, run, walk, or travel any road safely. Travel under the expectation that you need to anticipate someone else's dumb move and you will find yourself prepared for the majority of situations (note that I didn't say all of them, because someone out there will find a way to blow your mind one day).