I don't think that's how it works. The robot wouldn't carry the order in it's "hands", it would have the order locked inside, and open a door for the customer to access the food. Otherwise, people would be snatching food off the robot during the trip from the kitchen to the room.
Why was there any market it the first place? It is trivially easy to grow your own! I knew several people who grew pot in their dorm room in college in California.
Gonzales v Raich already set the precedent that State's Rights don't exist, because literally everything could potentially be sold to someone in another state, therefore everything can be regulated by the federal government under the Interstate Commerce Clause.
The college towns in Texas like Austin might be an exception -- and Austin is where I predict Amazon's HQ2 is going. Austin is Portland's sister city; they have the same motto, "Keep Portland Weird" and "Keep Austin Weird". I think the assumption is that if you locate where the cost of business is the lowest, the talent will relocate there to work for you -- and be unable to find any competing jobs (See Grass Valley Group for their employee retention strategy; they initially located literally in the middle of a cow pasture in the mountains east of Sacramento. Nope, you couldn't commute to any other tech jobs from there, they were the only player in town!)
In my experience, a lot of companies mistake "motion" for "progress". Apparently they have a perverse incentive to keep changing things despite a lack of evidence indicating that the change is worth the cost. In general, any "improvement" makes operation less efficient in the short term. If you constantly keep after people enough to use the new system, in theory the productivity climbs back above the point it was at before you changed things. But human nature being what it is, humans are inherently resistant to change and there are enumerable ways for people to sabotage new systems and make sure they don't work.
Sleep deprivation appears to be one of the companies unspoken driving principles. Yes, it's a demanding environment to work in, but other than that they are nice people.
Sun didn't have a viable business model. Amazon has dozens of business models, and only a few of them need to work to keep the company viable. Apple just opened their starship -- your criticism might be appropriate for them, the seem to be falling farther and farther behind Samsung, which ironically provides 35% of the parts for the iPhone anyway. "Our top supplier is copying us!", Apple keeps whining...
No. Amazon, Google, and Facebook have so much cash on hand, they can afford the throw hundreds of projects at the wall and see what sticks. As long as they have an effective mechanism for deciding when to STOP funding these experiments, they will be making money. On paper, Jeff Bezos is now the richest man in the world, worth at least 50 times what Trump is worth -- why do you think Trump hates Bezos so much? (Not sure whether or not to add Microsoft and Apple to the above list. They have lots of cash, but seem to fail at execution lately.) Meanwhile, Meg Whitman has left HP Enterprise to go head up a different company -- apparently even she has finally seen they have no viable business model. And, shocking, Yahoo is still in business?!?
In retrospect, British attempts at protectionism were counter-productive. But of course, Trump has never bothered to study history, so he cannot learn from it.
Amazon sorting centers will hire literally anyone; you just have to be able to pass a drug screening. They didn't even ask to see anybody's resume. $12.50/hr starting wage in the U.S.; don't know how much they pay in U.K.
My life goal is go down in the record books as the first human to die on Mars. Too bad they won't take me because I'm not in perfect health. I agree that economics dictate any trip to Mars will likely be one-way.
I'm all in favor of creating a viable third party. But you can't expect the same people that profit from the two party system to change it! That's the same reason elimination of he electoral college or real campaign finance reform are very unlikely.
Airlines are somewhat natural monopolies, like chip manufacturers. To some extent, for a given area, a telecom is a natural monopoly, much like an electric utility. For electric utilities, the maintenance of the grid and the production of power should be separate functions; perhaps telecom could be handled in the same way: have one company maintain the "last mile", and let any company that wants plug into it... but that would require Net Neutrality, wouldn't it?
I've argued in the past that Microsoft would be worth more as separate companies. At least separate the OS company from the Apps company, so they are free to make competitive apps on Linux and Mac. (Yes, they already port Office to Mac). As for as XBox, the convergence between Windows and XBox is probably a good thing; I look forward to Windows PCs and XBox consoles becoming indistinguishable, and to being able to play XBox games wieh a gaming mouse and keyboard.
I'm 57, and although I know what all those things are, I wouldn't be able to use any of them efficiently. It's much easier to write a quick program on the computer to do it for me, and has been ever since 1980 when I was in college.
Slashdot Mirror
Does anybody still have a MySpace account?
Yes, Botlr has no hands!
I don't think that's how it works. The robot wouldn't carry the order in it's "hands", it would have the order locked inside, and open a door for the customer to access the food. Otherwise, people would be snatching food off the robot during the trip from the kitchen to the room.
If they are 80 pounds or less, you still have to buckle them into a car seat...
Actually, I would prefer a robot come to my door than an obnoxious human being.
Why was there any market it the first place? It is trivially easy to grow your own! I knew several people who grew pot in their dorm room in college in California.
Gonzales v Raich already set the precedent that State's Rights don't exist, because literally everything could potentially be sold to someone in another state, therefore everything can be regulated by the federal government under the Interstate Commerce Clause.
The Portland connection is me; I live in Portland, which is now out of the running for HQ2 despite being a 3 hour drive from the Seattle headquarters.
The college towns in Texas like Austin might be an exception -- and Austin is where I predict Amazon's HQ2 is going. Austin is Portland's sister city; they have the same motto, "Keep Portland Weird" and "Keep Austin Weird". I think the assumption is that if you locate where the cost of business is the lowest, the talent will relocate there to work for you -- and be unable to find any competing jobs (See Grass Valley Group for their employee retention strategy; they initially located literally in the middle of a cow pasture in the mountains east of Sacramento. Nope, you couldn't commute to any other tech jobs from there, they were the only player in town!)
In my experience, a lot of companies mistake "motion" for "progress". Apparently they have a perverse incentive to keep changing things despite a lack of evidence indicating that the change is worth the cost. In general, any "improvement" makes operation less efficient in the short term. If you constantly keep after people enough to use the new system, in theory the productivity climbs back above the point it was at before you changed things. But human nature being what it is, humans are inherently resistant to change and there are enumerable ways for people to sabotage new systems and make sure they don't work.
Sleep deprivation appears to be one of the companies unspoken driving principles. Yes, it's a demanding environment to work in, but other than that they are nice people.
Sun didn't have a viable business model. Amazon has dozens of business models, and only a few of them need to work to keep the company viable. Apple just opened their starship -- your criticism might be appropriate for them, the seem to be falling farther and farther behind Samsung, which ironically provides 35% of the parts for the iPhone anyway. "Our top supplier is copying us!", Apple keeps whining...
No. Amazon, Google, and Facebook have so much cash on hand, they can afford the throw hundreds of projects at the wall and see what sticks. As long as they have an effective mechanism for deciding when to STOP funding these experiments, they will be making money. On paper, Jeff Bezos is now the richest man in the world, worth at least 50 times what Trump is worth -- why do you think Trump hates Bezos so much? (Not sure whether or not to add Microsoft and Apple to the above list. They have lots of cash, but seem to fail at execution lately.) Meanwhile, Meg Whitman has left HP Enterprise to go head up a different company -- apparently even she has finally seen they have no viable business model. And, shocking, Yahoo is still in business?!?
"Welcome to Amazon: bureaucracy with a smile! Please check your soul at the front desk, and have a good day!"
In retrospect, British attempts at protectionism were counter-productive. But of course, Trump has never bothered to study history, so he cannot learn from it.
Amazon sorting centers will hire literally anyone; you just have to be able to pass a drug screening. They didn't even ask to see anybody's resume. $12.50/hr starting wage in the U.S.; don't know how much they pay in U.K.
"Give them each a quarter acre of land and let them grow their own food... or starve." is a thought I frequently have.
I hear the wait for an abortion is currently more than 10 months...
My life goal is go down in the record books as the first human to die on Mars. Too bad they won't take me because I'm not in perfect health. I agree that economics dictate any trip to Mars will likely be one-way.
Having lots of sex with green-skinned women!
I'm all in favor of creating a viable third party. But you can't expect the same people that profit from the two party system to change it! That's the same reason elimination of he electoral college or real campaign finance reform are very unlikely.
Airlines are somewhat natural monopolies, like chip manufacturers. To some extent, for a given area, a telecom is a natural monopoly, much like an electric utility. For electric utilities, the maintenance of the grid and the production of power should be separate functions; perhaps telecom could be handled in the same way: have one company maintain the "last mile", and let any company that wants plug into it... but that would require Net Neutrality, wouldn't it?
What's the business model for maintaining a free OS and web browser, separate from using it to leverage ad sales?
I've argued in the past that Microsoft would be worth more as separate companies. At least separate the OS company from the Apps company, so they are free to make competitive apps on Linux and Mac. (Yes, they already port Office to Mac). As for as XBox, the convergence between Windows and XBox is probably a good thing; I look forward to Windows PCs and XBox consoles becoming indistinguishable, and to being able to play XBox games wieh a gaming mouse and keyboard.
I'm 57, and although I know what all those things are, I wouldn't be able to use any of them efficiently. It's much easier to write a quick program on the computer to do it for me, and has been ever since 1980 when I was in college.