In your scenario, all of these people traveling about are going to need all the same resources of a sedentary population plus a truly massive outlay of resources to get them to all of these places. Why would we be making jobs out of going to exotic locations at that point? If automation has made these things so cheap there's no economic advantage to sending a person because at that point a robot could do the job better and cheaper.
I love a physical keyboard but that looks like a very non-ergonomic. A slide out keyboard along the phone's length would be perfect (I would still be using my old Motorola that had this if it wasnt so under powered by now). That blackberry looks like finger pain to me.
Also, the battery life is traditional garbage which makes me think you're a paid advertiser.
That's a fucking great tip. I havent looked at new cell phones in a bit so I didn't know this was coming.
The reviewers lack of enthusiasm for the phone typifies my dislike of the modern cell phone market. Mediocre specs and a huge battery life are exactly what I want as it allows for a great price point that features everything I want.
I really don't feel that more expensive phones offer any extra value for their higher price point.
Cell manufacturers piss me off because they're focusing on everything i dont care about. Thin phone? I dont ware hipster skinny jeans, I could care less. Faster processing? The only reason I use a Samsung S5 is because my S4 broke. Screen goes all the way to the edge of the phone? I'd rather my phone not have design features that make it prone to breakage.
If some one made a smart phone that could go several days without charging under realistic usage conditions I might drop $699 on it. Lame duck garbage like this? No thanks, I'd rather spend 3 or 4 hundred on something that does everything I want it to do just as well (and I find that expense insulting even given how old the tech is now that meets my needs)
"China is never going to have the world's biggest economy until it ditches its totalitarian system."
You had me nodding along until that last part. While their numbers are a bit sketchy it seems to he generally agreed upon that China's economy is growing faster than ours and has been for quite some time. Couple that with the fact that they have over 3 times the consumers that we do and I think it's really quite possible for them to have a larger economy in the future.
Now if we're talking per capita gdp that might jive with what you're saying.
He plays in the system that currently exist for everybody. One billionaire paying more in taxes isnt going to make a meaningful difference in US tax revenue so why be the one person who pays more.
Silicon Valley's horrible urban planning and UI are two completely different issues. With or without UI, SV's problems will only ever be solved by getting city council people elected who actually give a rats ass about those who dont make 100k a year and then slogging through a shit ton of lawsuits brought on by people who dont care about people who make less than 100k per year.
So your solution to the potential massive unemployment due to automation is to send all of the unemployed people to the moon, mars, or underwater? Wouldnt that cost massive amounts more than UBI and then the people would still need food and everything else UBI would provide them.
I really dont think you thought your post through.
"UBI addresses the problem of jobs disappearing completely, which is imaginary since there is no evidence that is actually happening."
The worry though is that we're not too far from massive job losses. As a single example, what happens when the trucking business doesnt need drivers anymore? That's a ton of jobs just there that pay reasonably well that will disappear into smoke and that's just a single advancement amoung many that seems to be just around the corner and threatens quite a few jobs.
It seems quite prudent to start a conversation about how we deal with this very significant potential problem and UBI is certainly a possible solution.
"It is amusing that all of these rich people proposing this are not talking about using their own money..."
I see a comment like this pop up in every UBI discussion on slashdot and there's no truth to it at all. Any wealthy person talking about this is talking about using their own money by default because they pay a disproportionate amount of taxes. On top of that, given that these people are generally not dumb people, they probably realize that their taxes will have to go up to make UBI work.
"If left unchecked, the dolists would vote themselves extra benefits"
That is not inevitable at all. Just lo9k at the here and now, there are quite a lot of red staters who receive government assistance who regularly vote for fiscal conservatives who often want to cut their benefits.
Yes, government costs money and we all have to pay taxes in one form or another but unless you're an anarchist you believe people should be forcibly taxed just like most people so stop your dumb scare mongering.
I'm splitting hairs? You're literally redefining the word "communism". If the state doesnt own the means of production then it is not communism at all.
I feel like you just made your same point from above. As I pointed out with my example above, people dont just vote blindly for their own narrow self interest which means UBI is not destined to be pushed too far. Sure, with Maduro people certainly seemed to but there's plenty of examples of people not voting that way (such as what I wrote above)
Why must voters vote for an unsustainable level of UBI? I dont see that as inevitable at all.
Just look at our poorest states with the highest percentages of people on welfare. They're all red states and regularly elect fiscal conservatives who are generally trying to trim social programs.
Slashdot Mirror
In your scenario, all of these people traveling about are going to need all the same resources of a sedentary population plus a truly massive outlay of resources to get them to all of these places. Why would we be making jobs out of going to exotic locations at that point? If automation has made these things so cheap there's no economic advantage to sending a person because at that point a robot could do the job better and cheaper.
While I normally don't reply to AC's...
I love a physical keyboard but that looks like a very non-ergonomic. A slide out keyboard along the phone's length would be perfect (I would still be using my old Motorola that had this if it wasnt so under powered by now). That blackberry looks like finger pain to me.
Also, the battery life is traditional garbage which makes me think you're a paid advertiser.
That's a fucking great tip. I havent looked at new cell phones in a bit so I didn't know this was coming.
The reviewers lack of enthusiasm for the phone typifies my dislike of the modern cell phone market. Mediocre specs and a huge battery life are exactly what I want as it allows for a great price point that features everything I want.
I really don't feel that more expensive phones offer any extra value for their higher price point.
Cell manufacturers piss me off because they're focusing on everything i dont care about. Thin phone? I dont ware hipster skinny jeans, I could care less. Faster processing? The only reason I use a Samsung S5 is because my S4 broke. Screen goes all the way to the edge of the phone? I'd rather my phone not have design features that make it prone to breakage.
If some one made a smart phone that could go several days without charging under realistic usage conditions I might drop $699 on it. Lame duck garbage like this? No thanks, I'd rather spend 3 or 4 hundred on something that does everything I want it to do just as well (and I find that expense insulting even given how old the tech is now that meets my needs)
Cool, so it's a smart phone like every other model on the market with small performance enhancements and features I would never ever notice.
What's the battery life?
Ah, I didn't realize they were so much over a billion. Thanks for the update.
"China is never going to have the world's biggest economy until it ditches its totalitarian system."
You had me nodding along until that last part. While their numbers are a bit sketchy it seems to he generally agreed upon that China's economy is growing faster than ours and has been for quite some time. Couple that with the fact that they have over 3 times the consumers that we do and I think it's really quite possible for them to have a larger economy in the future.
Now if we're talking per capita gdp that might jive with what you're saying.
Because that would cost him a shit ton more money then if his taxes went up.
He plays in the system that currently exist for everybody. One billionaire paying more in taxes isnt going to make a meaningful difference in US tax revenue so why be the one person who pays more.
Show me a quote where he says his taxes should be lower.
Silicon Valley's horrible urban planning and UI are two completely different issues. With or without UI, SV's problems will only ever be solved by getting city council people elected who actually give a rats ass about those who dont make 100k a year and then slogging through a shit ton of lawsuits brought on by people who dont care about people who make less than 100k per year.
So your solution to the potential massive unemployment due to automation is to send all of the unemployed people to the moon, mars, or underwater? Wouldnt that cost massive amounts more than UBI and then the people would still need food and everything else UBI would provide them.
I really dont think you thought your post through.
"UBI addresses the problem of jobs disappearing completely, which is imaginary since there is no evidence that is actually happening."
The worry though is that we're not too far from massive job losses. As a single example, what happens when the trucking business doesnt need drivers anymore? That's a ton of jobs just there that pay reasonably well that will disappear into smoke and that's just a single advancement amoung many that seems to be just around the corner and threatens quite a few jobs.
It seems quite prudent to start a conversation about how we deal with this very significant potential problem and UBI is certainly a possible solution.
Oh the evils of taxation!
So you're an anarchist then right?
"It is amusing that all of these rich people proposing this are not talking about using their own money..."
I see a comment like this pop up in every UBI discussion on slashdot and there's no truth to it at all. Any wealthy person talking about this is talking about using their own money by default because they pay a disproportionate amount of taxes. On top of that, given that these people are generally not dumb people, they probably realize that their taxes will have to go up to make UBI work.
"If left unchecked, the dolists would vote themselves extra benefits"
That is not inevitable at all. Just lo9k at the here and now, there are quite a lot of red staters who receive government assistance who regularly vote for fiscal conservatives who often want to cut their benefits.
"at gun-point", gimme a break.
Yes, government costs money and we all have to pay taxes in one form or another but unless you're an anarchist you believe people should be forcibly taxed just like most people so stop your dumb scare mongering.
I'm splitting hairs? You're literally redefining the word "communism". If the state doesnt own the means of production then it is not communism at all.
I feel like you just made your same point from above. As I pointed out with my example above, people dont just vote blindly for their own narrow self interest which means UBI is not destined to be pushed too far. Sure, with Maduro people certainly seemed to but there's plenty of examples of people not voting that way (such as what I wrote above)
If by "communism" you mean a word that doesnt mean "communism"
You need to freshen up on what the word "communism" means. UBI advocates are not demanding government take over private businesses.
Why must voters vote for an unsustainable level of UBI? I dont see that as inevitable at all.
Just look at our poorest states with the highest percentages of people on welfare. They're all red states and regularly elect fiscal conservatives who are generally trying to trim social programs.
Show me some data on that because I couldnt disagree more.
Who the heck are you associating with? I hang out with Lefties and live in a Lefty party of the country and I've literally never heard such nonsense.
Maybe check what you're saying and if you're sure that's not a problem then try to associate with better people.
Also, here's a nice piece on them from Ars. A little old but relevant.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...