Very practical. When a table is taken, you press a button, get a fresh sheet of wine menu, and puts it on the table when you greet/seat people together with the welcome snacks. Much better than having to log around a 'pad, and you can leave the paper with the customer without fear of someone stealing the menu, if they want to peruse the list a bit. I know what I would pick:)
That's an awful idea, just from the amount of paper it would use alone.
Bit more cumbersome for the graphics, perhaps, but a bit less for the text and numbers. Throw in a mouse, and the notebook wins on both counts. That is a weak usecase.
No, it doesn't. It's still far easier to pass around a tablet, and it's far easier to manipulate the graphics with your fingers. Typing is about a wash.
Again, I suspect this is the show-off effect. A good printer and roughly the same software would give you paper-menus, which would be lighter, more durable, and disposable, while being up-to-date as of a few minutes ago. And lets not forget, cheaper. And again, this usecase is so special that I could draw upon my "tiny minority" argument again.
And far less interactive. I can get much, much, much more information about the wine on the iPad than you could fit onto paper. Plus, the iPad is going to be updated in real time.
I'm not arguing for or against automation being good or bad. However, in this instance, saying that the US is the world's #1 or #2 manufacturer (depending on the day, how hung over the boss is, etc), doesn't mean a lot because the jobs aren't there. We're making more stuff, but employing fewer people, meaning that there are even less jobs for those out of work to compete for.
On that unrelated note, that feature sounds awesome and is exactly what my business is looking for, also. Perhaps the/. editors would be willing to send us teh codez.
Actually, you very much didn't. Your example is from the 20th Century, not the 19th. After unions had started getting momentum. And you might claim "market pressure", but that's just code speak for "I don't want to admit that pressure from unions did this, and without him doing it, unions would have come in."
But, of course, you can keep thinking that your anecdotal evidence actually counts for something. Forget EVERY OTHER EXAMPLE FROM HISTORY of employers treating their employees like crap. One person didn't, so we should be able to trust in the market to do it, right?
Fuck you. Seriously, fuck you. You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about, and then go on to disparage anyone who wants to make any kind of comfortable living for themselves.
the idea of collective bargaining is that you are not smart enough to bargain for yourself, so you are treated as a grunt
No, the idea of collective bargaining is that, as an individual, you don't have enough power to bargain, because the company can just tell you to fuck right off.
Also government has no authority to spend on public works projects
Yeah, you'd be wrong there.
And quite frankly, take your naive "government is awful" bullshit somewhere else. We don't want it in this country. Go to Somalia, and see what happens when the government can't actually do anything. See how awesome it is when all functions of government are left to the private sector.
And I can tell you right now, that during those times, workers were treated like slaves, and not given any rights. They had extremely dangerous workplaces, they didn't get any benefits whatsoever, and often weren't even paid in real money.
However, despite what you'd like to believe, today we still have one of the top spots in global manufacturing.
I absolutely am not interested in any government dictating that some fellow man get more than they are producing not based on market forces but based on government putting a gun to an employer's head. I am absolutely not interested to have my profits taken away and shared among those, who didn't work for them by the force of government.
This is bullshit speak for, "Employers should be able to completely dictate all terms of employment, and unless you're a rich, valuable person already, you don't deserve benefits or decent wages."
AFAIC there must be no public unions of any kind, it needs to be illegal to have public unions
Because you should have different rights based on who your employer is.
As to private unions - they are fine, as long as there are no labor laws passed by government that change the power dynamic between the private business and private labor.
So as long as the employers get to keep all of the power in the relationship, and unions have none, then they are fine. Because we wouldn't want unions to, you know, actually improve the conditions for the workers. That'd cut into profits.
But we'd have to make sure there's enough time for the companies to make a profit after they go thorough all the research, testing, and FDA approval costs.
They already make that and more. You want to get their costs down? Go back to the days when they couldn't advertise directly to consumers. Just about every big drug maker in the US spends far more on marketing than they actually do on R&D.
Ahh, so you live in the world where workers have no power at all, and should be licking the balls of the employers for the table scraps, and be liking it, God Dammit! Heaven forbid they try to increase their bargaining power by banding together.
Yes, that's true. But if you look at the figures again, you'll realize that's largely AUTOMATED manufacturing. As in, using a fraction of the people that it would have used before. So you're still missing the point.
The alternative is not being able to use the one tool you have to bring attention to shitty working conditions in a company, and pressuring them to change.
Slashdot Mirror
Very practical. When a table is taken, you press a button, get a fresh sheet of wine menu, and puts it on the table when you greet/seat people together with the welcome snacks. Much better than having to log around a 'pad, and you can leave the paper with the customer without fear of someone stealing the menu, if they want to peruse the list a bit. I know what I would pick :)
That's an awful idea, just from the amount of paper it would use alone.
Bit more cumbersome for the graphics, perhaps, but a bit less for the text and numbers. Throw in a mouse, and the notebook wins on both counts. That is a weak usecase.
No, it doesn't. It's still far easier to pass around a tablet, and it's far easier to manipulate the graphics with your fingers. Typing is about a wash.
Again, I suspect this is the show-off effect. A good printer and roughly the same software would give you paper-menus, which would be lighter, more durable, and disposable, while being up-to-date as of a few minutes ago. And lets not forget, cheaper. And again, this usecase is so special that I could draw upon my "tiny minority" argument again.
And far less interactive. I can get much, much, much more information about the wine on the iPad than you could fit onto paper. Plus, the iPad is going to be updated in real time.
Despite of all of they hype and the media rooting for it, the iPad still has some inherent flaws.
And all of the Android tablets don't?
Despite all of the haters hating on it, the iPad is one of the better choices for a tablet out there.
Can you plug HDMI and USB into the IPad[2]? No
That's funny, my friend's office has a projector where he has an HDMI cable coming down so that he can plug it into his iPad 2.
Can you get an IPad2 for $550, with 16GB of storage? No
No, that's because the 16GB one is $499.
-- Does it's apps contain a wider range of functionality? No
Purely opinion.
Can you get a large range of apps to give you most of the fun/functionality you need on an IPad[2], for free? No
Again, purely opinion. And the answer is yes.
I'm not arguing for or against automation being good or bad. However, in this instance, saying that the US is the world's #1 or #2 manufacturer (depending on the day, how hung over the boss is, etc), doesn't mean a lot because the jobs aren't there. We're making more stuff, but employing fewer people, meaning that there are even less jobs for those out of work to compete for.
On that unrelated note, that feature sounds awesome and is exactly what my business is looking for, also. Perhaps the /. editors would be willing to send us teh codez.
So we just have to deal with our shitty conditions for another 100 years or so before it starts to benefit us?
Actually, you very much didn't. Your example is from the 20th Century, not the 19th. After unions had started getting momentum. And you might claim "market pressure", but that's just code speak for "I don't want to admit that pressure from unions did this, and without him doing it, unions would have come in."
But, of course, you can keep thinking that your anecdotal evidence actually counts for something. Forget EVERY OTHER EXAMPLE FROM HISTORY of employers treating their employees like crap. One person didn't, so we should be able to trust in the market to do it, right?
You are a liar, and an awful human being. Your selfishness is getting in the way of people actually having good health care.
Fuck you. Seriously, fuck you. You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about, and then go on to disparage anyone who wants to make any kind of comfortable living for themselves.
the idea of collective bargaining is that you are not smart enough to bargain for yourself, so you are treated as a grunt
No, the idea of collective bargaining is that, as an individual, you don't have enough power to bargain, because the company can just tell you to fuck right off.
Also government has no authority to spend on public works projects
Yeah, you'd be wrong there.
And quite frankly, take your naive "government is awful" bullshit somewhere else. We don't want it in this country. Go to Somalia, and see what happens when the government can't actually do anything. See how awesome it is when all functions of government are left to the private sector.
And I can tell you right now, that during those times, workers were treated like slaves, and not given any rights. They had extremely dangerous workplaces, they didn't get any benefits whatsoever, and often weren't even paid in real money.
However, despite what you'd like to believe, today we still have one of the top spots in global manufacturing.
I absolutely am not interested in any government dictating that some fellow man get more than they are producing not based on market forces but based on government putting a gun to an employer's head. I am absolutely not interested to have my profits taken away and shared among those, who didn't work for them by the force of government.
This is bullshit speak for, "Employers should be able to completely dictate all terms of employment, and unless you're a rich, valuable person already, you don't deserve benefits or decent wages."
AFAIC there must be no public unions of any kind, it needs to be illegal to have public unions
Because you should have different rights based on who your employer is.
As to private unions - they are fine, as long as there are no labor laws passed by government that change the power dynamic between the private business and private labor.
So as long as the employers get to keep all of the power in the relationship, and unions have none, then they are fine. Because we wouldn't want unions to, you know, actually improve the conditions for the workers. That'd cut into profits.
In times of very low unemployment, the union can even hold a company hostage for unreasonable demands and get them.
And in times of high unemployment, the company can hold the employees hostage for unreasonable pay cuts and get them too.
Yep - and for non-union employees, that is done once, at time of hire.
So you never try to get a raise, a promotion, or anything above what you're currently doing? Sounds like an incredibly shitty career.
But we'd have to make sure there's enough time for the companies to make a profit after they go thorough all the research, testing, and FDA approval costs.
They already make that and more. You want to get their costs down? Go back to the days when they couldn't advertise directly to consumers. Just about every big drug maker in the US spends far more on marketing than they actually do on R&D.
Your entire post is full of unsubstantiated bullshit.
Or at least non-union workers cannot.
Because none of them are willing to fight those changes. Quit blaming unions when the problem is obviously your lack of balls to stand up.
I can truthfully say I have yet to be employed by a company that is out to do their employees harm.
Lucky you. I would, however, bet that you have yet to work for a company that actually cares about it's employees.
Ahh, so you live in the world where workers have no power at all, and should be licking the balls of the employers for the table scraps, and be liking it, God Dammit! Heaven forbid they try to increase their bargaining power by banding together.
Yes, that's true. But if you look at the figures again, you'll realize that's largely AUTOMATED manufacturing. As in, using a fraction of the people that it would have used before. So you're still missing the point.
Probably because they were actually willing to fight to be treated like people.
Who the fuck cares? Why the fuck should your value as a person be tied to the economy?
Got any citation that they don't already?
And good on these employees. More workers need to fight against this bullshit that is gutting health benefits.
The alternative is not being able to use the one tool you have to bring attention to shitty working conditions in a company, and pressuring them to change.