The problem is that those people are only employed for a short time in respect to each machine.
For example: 2 assembly line workera are employed for 40 hrs / 50 wks a year at $6/hr = $12,000 / yr * 2 = $24,000. A robot can be built for $48,000 with $6,000 / yr maintenance. Over 3 years the robot has paid for itself. It only employed a design engineer for 4 weeks to design it, a crew of 2 for 1 week to build it and on average one tech for at most 1 week to maintain it.
The robot company needs to sell 50 robots to keep everyone working all the time, so that's 100 line workers it can replace while only employing 4 people plus a few support staff.
I call that a net loss.
I've been in manufacturing for years and have seen it happen too many times. It's not new but a fact of life. As an IT guy I've personally created systems that have replaced 10 people without spending anything other then 3 months of my time, simply by automating data entry. Doing that saved a company from going under, but that's 10 people that will not be rehired.
Employment is down because of technology. Systems are getting better, more complex and more reliable, so the trend will only increase.
Sorry for my mistake. I got the numbers from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G using the peek download speed, and I used 1000mb/s instead of 1Gb/s to show the difference better.
Here's the sections I based my "true 4G" comment on: Since the above mentioned first-release versions of Mobile WiMAX and LTE support much less than 1 Gbit/s peak bit rate, they are not fully IMT-Advanced compliant, but are often branded 4G by service providers. On December 6, 2010, ITU-R recognized that these two technologies, as well as other beyond-3G technologies that do not fulfill the IMT-Advanced requirements, could nevertheless be considered "4G", provided they represent forerunners to IMT-Advanced compliant versions and "a substantial level of improvement in performance and capabilities with respect to the initial third generation systems now deployed".
After that I really don't give a @#$! since this is/. and everyone will say that the sky is brown to make someone else look like an idiot.
The British Queen has daily meetings where she's the only one sitting. It's not for any formal reason but rather to make the meeting as short and to the point as possible. From what former PM's say, it works really well.
I'm just wondering and maybe it exists already, but why not make everything on one chip? The CPU, memory, GPU, etc? Most people don't mess with the insides of their computer, and I'm guessing that it will speed up the computer as a whole. You won't even need to make it high-performance. Just do a I3 core with the associated chipset (or equivalent), maybe 4GB of RAM, some connectivity (USB 2, DVI, SATA, Wi-Fi and 1000Base-T) and you have it all. The power savings should be huge as everything internally should be low voltage. The die will be huge but we are heading that way anyway. Am I talking bollocks?
That would be true if the pupils were capable of sitting in a class and doing the work; unfortunately this is not the case for 99% of classes. Children (and adults for that matter) like to goof off and avoid work at all costs, so most of a teachers job is to figure out how to keep the pupils engaged so that they learn. They use several techniques for this and is one of the main differences between the "bad" teachers and the "good" ones.
I have yet to see an IPad or other computer that can mirror this ability, as it would entail true AI. The setup you talk about might be good for college, when it has actually been implemented to some success (see Open University for an example or any online course) but it requires pupils that are motivated enough to want to do the work. This method isn't any good for public school systems as most of the pupils don't want to be there.
My wife is an English teacher for High School, and I'm an IT Manager, so we have debated this a lot.
I think you are almost right. My wife and I do not see where computers would help in, say, an English Lit classroom. This might be different with Math and Sciences but we can't speak for that. We both think that it removes hands-on learning and frees the teacher from actually teaching anything (not a good thing). If this improves teaching, then yes, just as in business these teachers should be replaced by robots.
But I think that all the money that is being spent on computers and tests would be better spent on helping teachers to improve. A group of experienced teachers going around and sitting in on classes for a week or so and providing positive feedback would work wonders on some of the "bad" teachers, who might just be new and overwhelmed, or lacking in support or something else.
I've also noticed that computers in classrooms are implemented in a crap way. My wife's last school just gave every single teacher and student IPad's without increasing the amount of IT support in the school, or even increasing the amount of power outlets in the classroom. I think this set up will cause more problems, more wasted time in classes, and a downturn in education. There is also a severe lack of training and a lack of time to create lessons that will use the technology well, so it really makes it useless to give them these tools.
Yes, the drivers here (in Abu Dhabi) really are that bad. Blackberry's are not illegal here as other posts have said; they have huge billboards advertising the latest ones all over the place (Blackberry's were banned at one point, but RIM have let the UAE government to see the traffic, as has happened in many countries recently). The cars are also heavily tinted because of the sun, so it's almost impossible to tell what people are doing in their cars.
You also have a good mix of Indian, Pakistani, Arab, European and African drivers who all have different ideas about driving. It is not unusual for the middle lane on a 5 lane road to turn left in front of everyone else going straight.
But the most common accident is being rear-ended by drivers using their phones and not looking at the road. And I can say that over the last week I have seen less accidents, so the numbers actually sound right.
I agree. I was also in the UK during "the troubles" and then in the US for the Oklahoma bombing; the difference was drastic in news coverage and response.
Al Qaeda first tried to take down the twin towers with car bombs, but I have never seen car screening when parking in a high-rise. So I really do think the airport security is really out of line, and will deter me from flying unless I really have too.
I would have been on one of the planes that would have been blown up in August 2006, and that doesn't scare me, but I still believe that airport security hasn't stopped one attempt.
I agree. If it costs me less in a public health system, then that's what I want. I don't really care if it's "more government", but I do know there will not be any "death panels".
We pay the most for healthcare in the world, but our infant mortality rate is one of the highest, and our life expectancy is one of the lowest. How can anyone say we have the best healthcare in the world with numbers like that?
I'm sorry, but you are making too much sense for SlashDot, and your user ID has been revoked. Please try again when you are ready to post "first!" or some other shit.
I claim to be an independent, but I'm leaning more to the Dems since the Republicans can't do the math. I've always wondered how they will balance the budget while reducing taxes, and reduce spending without touching the DoD. The math just doesn't add up.
And they are only expecting $250,000 for it??? I wonder how much the purchasing company will make from it? I'm betting a hell of a lot more. Why don't they just license it out, and have a continuous income from it?
I actually believe that they started using the NT scheme after ME, as the consumer version switched to the NT kernel. So Windows XP = 5, Vista was 6, and Windows 7 is, well, 7. But we could argue about this all day long...
They already have. Recent court cases have accepted evidence from GPS systems that have been added secretly to cars by the police when they are on public roads. Gives you more detail then having camera's everywhere.
I've seen the budget rush too many times. It's one of the main reasons for bad spending, and I wish I knew a good way to stop it. If we managed to figure that out, I'm guessing that we would save a huge amount of money.
One thing I learned last year is that the government cannot tell you how much it spends on outsourcing, and if it is getting value for money. It is very possible that they are spending way too much money on contractors and outsourcing then it would cost to have it internal to the government. Another problem with outsourcing is the lack of control you have over the system and the data within.
Contracting and outsourcing only works and saves money when it is held accountable for their results, and many times they are not. Just because the job is outsourced, it doesn't mean "better" or "cheaper".
In the end there is no way to efficiently run a government, no matter what the size. Public scrutiny is about the only way to stop the government from wasting money, but that has some problems. 1) It involves opening up the books to the public, and no administration will do that; and 2) It's a European idea, and we can't do anything in the US that works in Europe, as they are a bunch of Socialists! And 3) Britain does this, but it gets out of hand with people arguing over the cost of an expensed lunch.
-- I don't think your an idiot, unless you do rule the world.
It does to me for several reasons. How long before one of the machines is stolen? And why would anyone want the physical gold? It's not like you can purchase anything with pure gold now.
I also don't know why anyone would buy gold at this price. I always thought the mantra was "Buy low, sell high", so I have no idea why anyone would buy gold when it's almost $1300 per ounce, as I don't see it getting much higher (although I could be really wrong).
You are assuming the they is a valid alternative which does not filter. Once one company strikes a deal with MS to give them priority over Google, then all the ISP's will be looking for the same (or more) money. Let me try it another way... Left-leaning socialist pay all ISP's to have the Right-leaning tin-hat crazies website become too slow to view. Sorry Fux News, you paid millions for a website it's useless.
This has nothing to do with the government viewing emails, websites, or following your blog (they do that already). It has everything to do with keeping the level playing field that has existed on the Internet since it was created. This decision will create a situation where the likes of Google and Facebook could not be started, as the cost of entry to the market will be too high.
In other words, only existing players and big companies in the future will be the only ones who can operate on the Internet. All others will be reduced to a sub-par level of service that will wipe them out. Would you wait 10 seconds for a webpage to load on your 10mb/s connection, or will you go with Google's.5 second load time?
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that those people are only employed for a short time in respect to each machine.
For example: 2 assembly line workera are employed for 40 hrs / 50 wks a year at $6/hr = $12,000 / yr * 2 = $24,000. A robot can be built for $48,000 with $6,000 / yr maintenance. Over 3 years the robot has paid for itself. It only employed a design engineer for 4 weeks to design it, a crew of 2 for 1 week to build it and on average one tech for at most 1 week to maintain it.
The robot company needs to sell 50 robots to keep everyone working all the time, so that's 100 line workers it can replace while only employing 4 people plus a few support staff.
I call that a net loss.
I've been in manufacturing for years and have seen it happen too many times. It's not new but a fact of life. As an IT guy I've personally created systems that have replaced 10 people without spending anything other then 3 months of my time, simply by automating data entry. Doing that saved a company from going under, but that's 10 people that will not be rehired.
Employment is down because of technology. Systems are getting better, more complex and more reliable, so the trend will only increase.
Sorry for my mistake. I got the numbers from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G using the peek download speed, and I used 1000mb/s instead of 1Gb/s to show the difference better.
Here's the sections I based my "true 4G" comment on:
Since the above mentioned first-release versions of Mobile WiMAX and LTE support much less than 1 Gbit/s peak bit rate, they are not fully IMT-Advanced compliant, but are often branded 4G by service providers. On December 6, 2010, ITU-R recognized that these two technologies, as well as other beyond-3G technologies that do not fulfill the IMT-Advanced requirements, could nevertheless be considered "4G", provided they represent forerunners to IMT-Advanced compliant versions and "a substantial level of improvement in performance and capabilities with respect to the initial third generation systems now deployed".
After that I really don't give a @#$! since this is /. and everyone will say that the sky is brown to make someone else look like an idiot.
But is it 4G LTE (100mb/s) or actual 4G (1000mb/s)? I think it's LTE but nothing seems to specify which one it is.
Totally agree!
The British Queen has daily meetings where she's the only one sitting. It's not for any formal reason but rather to make the meeting as short and to the point as possible. From what former PM's say, it works really well.
I didn't think about that! Now why can't they do that for a desktop or laptop? Is the ARM system just that much smaller then the Intel desktop chips?
I'm just wondering and maybe it exists already, but why not make everything on one chip? The CPU, memory, GPU, etc? Most people don't mess with the insides of their computer, and I'm guessing that it will speed up the computer as a whole. You won't even need to make it high-performance. Just do a I3 core with the associated chipset (or equivalent), maybe 4GB of RAM, some connectivity (USB 2, DVI, SATA, Wi-Fi and 1000Base-T) and you have it all. The power savings should be huge as everything internally should be low voltage. The die will be huge but we are heading that way anyway.
Am I talking bollocks?
IT: VMWare is the best! We need to use it for all our VM needs.
Boss: It's to expensive. I read that Windows does the same thing for free.
IT: No, it only does 10% of the stuff VMWare does. We need VMWare!
Boss: Glad we agree! Start implementing Windows Virtual Server tomorrow....
That would be true if the pupils were capable of sitting in a class and doing the work; unfortunately this is not the case for 99% of classes. Children (and adults for that matter) like to goof off and avoid work at all costs, so most of a teachers job is to figure out how to keep the pupils engaged so that they learn. They use several techniques for this and is one of the main differences between the "bad" teachers and the "good" ones.
I have yet to see an IPad or other computer that can mirror this ability, as it would entail true AI. The setup you talk about might be good for college, when it has actually been implemented to some success (see Open University for an example or any online course) but it requires pupils that are motivated enough to want to do the work. This method isn't any good for public school systems as most of the pupils don't want to be there.
My wife is an English teacher for High School, and I'm an IT Manager, so we have debated this a lot.
I think you are almost right. My wife and I do not see where computers would help in, say, an English Lit classroom. This might be different with Math and Sciences but we can't speak for that. We both think that it removes hands-on learning and frees the teacher from actually teaching anything (not a good thing). If this improves teaching, then yes, just as in business these teachers should be replaced by robots.
But I think that all the money that is being spent on computers and tests would be better spent on helping teachers to improve. A group of experienced teachers going around and sitting in on classes for a week or so and providing positive feedback would work wonders on some of the "bad" teachers, who might just be new and overwhelmed, or lacking in support or something else.
I've also noticed that computers in classrooms are implemented in a crap way. My wife's last school just gave every single teacher and student IPad's without increasing the amount of IT support in the school, or even increasing the amount of power outlets in the classroom. I think this set up will cause more problems, more wasted time in classes, and a downturn in education. There is also a severe lack of training and a lack of time to create lessons that will use the technology well, so it really makes it useless to give them these tools.
Yes, the drivers here (in Abu Dhabi) really are that bad. Blackberry's are not illegal here as other posts have said; they have huge billboards advertising the latest ones all over the place (Blackberry's were banned at one point, but RIM have let the UAE government to see the traffic, as has happened in many countries recently). The cars are also heavily tinted because of the sun, so it's almost impossible to tell what people are doing in their cars.
You also have a good mix of Indian, Pakistani, Arab, European and African drivers who all have different ideas about driving. It is not unusual for the middle lane on a 5 lane road to turn left in front of everyone else going straight.
But the most common accident is being rear-ended by drivers using their phones and not looking at the road. And I can say that over the last week I have seen less accidents, so the numbers actually sound right.
So the Daily Mail is more like "Fox News" then?
I agree. I was also in the UK during "the troubles" and then in the US for the Oklahoma bombing; the difference was drastic in news coverage and response.
Al Qaeda first tried to take down the twin towers with car bombs, but I have never seen car screening when parking in a high-rise. So I really do think the airport security is really out of line, and will deter me from flying unless I really have too.
I would have been on one of the planes that would have been blown up in August 2006, and that doesn't scare me, but I still believe that airport security hasn't stopped one attempt.
I agree. If it costs me less in a public health system, then that's what I want. I don't really care if it's "more government", but I do know there will not be any "death panels".
We pay the most for healthcare in the world, but our infant mortality rate is one of the highest, and our life expectancy is one of the lowest. How can anyone say we have the best healthcare in the world with numbers like that?
I'm sorry, but you are making too much sense for SlashDot, and your user ID has been revoked. Please try again when you are ready to post "first!" or some other shit.
I claim to be an independent, but I'm leaning more to the Dems since the Republicans can't do the math. I've always wondered how they will balance the budget while reducing taxes, and reduce spending without touching the DoD. The math just doesn't add up.
Let me change it then...
Why not hand out non-exclusive licenses to multiple companies?
And they are only expecting $250,000 for it??? I wonder how much the purchasing company will make from it? I'm betting a hell of a lot more. Why don't they just license it out, and have a continuous income from it?
I actually believe that they started using the NT scheme after ME, as the consumer version switched to the NT kernel. So Windows XP = 5, Vista was 6, and Windows 7 is, well, 7. But we could argue about this all day long...
They already have. Recent court cases have accepted evidence from GPS systems that have been added secretly to cars by the police when they are on public roads. Gives you more detail then having camera's everywhere.
I've seen the budget rush too many times. It's one of the main reasons for bad spending, and I wish I knew a good way to stop it. If we managed to figure that out, I'm guessing that we would save a huge amount of money.
One thing I learned last year is that the government cannot tell you how much it spends on outsourcing, and if it is getting value for money. It is very possible that they are spending way too much money on contractors and outsourcing then it would cost to have it internal to the government. Another problem with outsourcing is the lack of control you have over the system and the data within.
Contracting and outsourcing only works and saves money when it is held accountable for their results, and many times they are not. Just because the job is outsourced, it doesn't mean "better" or "cheaper".
In the end there is no way to efficiently run a government, no matter what the size. Public scrutiny is about the only way to stop the government from wasting money, but that has some problems. 1) It involves opening up the books to the public, and no administration will do that; and 2) It's a European idea, and we can't do anything in the US that works in Europe, as they are a bunch of Socialists! And 3) Britain does this, but it gets out of hand with people arguing over the cost of an expensed lunch.
--
I don't think your an idiot, unless you do rule the world.
It's a sillier name than the Ministry of Silly Walks.
Sorry, but I had to get Python in there somewhere...
It does to me for several reasons. How long before one of the machines is stolen? And why would anyone want the physical gold? It's not like you can purchase anything with pure gold now.
I also don't know why anyone would buy gold at this price. I always thought the mantra was "Buy low, sell high", so I have no idea why anyone would buy gold when it's almost $1300 per ounce, as I don't see it getting much higher (although I could be really wrong).
No. The government isn't distributing anything; they are just keeping the status-quo.
You are assuming the they is a valid alternative which does not filter. Once one company strikes a deal with MS to give them priority over Google, then all the ISP's will be looking for the same (or more) money.
Let me try it another way... Left-leaning socialist pay all ISP's to have the Right-leaning tin-hat crazies website become too slow to view. Sorry Fux News, you paid millions for a website it's useless.
This has nothing to do with the government viewing emails, websites, or following your blog (they do that already). It has everything to do with keeping the level playing field that has existed on the Internet since it was created. This decision will create a situation where the likes of Google and Facebook could not be started, as the cost of entry to the market will be too high.
In other words, only existing players and big companies in the future will be the only ones who can operate on the Internet. All others will be reduced to a sub-par level of service that will wipe them out. Would you wait 10 seconds for a webpage to load on your 10mb/s connection, or will you go with Google's .5 second load time?