Seems more like a simple supply-and-demand problem to me. Exploitation is easy when you have a huge oversupply of unskilled labor. Cut way back on the labor supply, and wages would rise automatically, with no need to force companies by state fiat to pay employees more than they are worth in a free market. How do you "cut back on the labor supply"? Aye, therein lies the rub...

Picking strawberries is extremely labor intensive, but it still seems like human beings would be better at picking out the good ones without damaging them than robots would. I've always thought swarms of small robots would be more useful for pest control: Seeking out and terminating with extreme prejudice any weeds, bugs, or rodents in the field. This could eliminate the use of herbicide and pesticide, hence no more need for "Roundup Resistant" and other GMO seeds. Grain losses to mice run into double-digit percentages in some states; seems like a mouse hunter-killer system could pay for itself.

The computer can count cards perfectly and brute force calculate the odds of each possible hand. The computer has no "tell"; but on the other hand, it probably can't read any human tells either. Over enough hands, the computer is always going to come out ahead, just by better calculation of probabilities. Artificial Intelligence isn't really required to give it an advantage, and other than being able to read the faces and tells of opponents, I'm not sure AI is even useful for poker. Of course, the software is probably also trying to use past bluffing history to predict when opponents are bluffing, giving this somewhat of the flavor of the Rock, Paper, Scissors programming competition (my quick and dirty algorithm sucked at that).

You're missing the most obvious use of this technology: you use it to make a full scale model of just one portion of your anatomy, not your complete body. You then give that model to your girlfriend to use when you're not there. Of course, guys being guys, most will be tempted to make a 150% scale model instead...

Agreed. I've been writing software for 32 years, and "We've completely changed your requirements, but that shouldn't affect your schedule or your budget any!" happens all the time. The point is, you have to push back. Tell them exactly what every change is going to cost (padded heavily). Unless they agree to add time and money to the project, then just deliver the originally agreed to project. Don't let people make unilateral changes in the contract after it is signed, unless you actually like working on money-losing projects!

You can automate backing up to the cloud. Much more difficult to automate rotating media through a safe deposit box. Unless you're driving to the bank every day for deposits anyway, I suspect the safe deposit box is not going to get refreshed as often as it should.

He meant that they are commonly referred to as "safe deposit box", not "safety deposit box". However, since we all know what he is talking about, who cares?

How long does the tape media last until it deteriorates to the point where it becomes unreadable?

String theory probably is incorrect, the question is, is it _provably_ incorrect? Come up with a proof that the math is flawed, and you will have greatly advanced the state of the art of physics. Come out with an unsubstantiated rant like the above, and you've accomplished nothing.

Lower prices at what cost? It appears their business model is based on not paying taxes licensing fees and not paying for commercial insurance. Lower cost due to an unfair competitive advantage gained by being scofflaws... is that the kind of business model we want to encourage?

If they accept cash, they're pretty much guaranteed the uber "drivers" are going to lie about the actual distance and short them on their percentage, so it's not much of a revenue stream. I'll bet they are amazed how many of the rides they arrange only travel a single block...

Because it's a bad language that teaches people bad habits. On the bright side, you used to be able to write programs in it on a $99 Timex Sinclair, which was a pretty low barrier to entry.

I haven't used this personally, but: http://sourceforge.net/project...

No, valuing gender above talent is by definition discrimination. The whole point is to be gender-blind in valuing talent. You don't do that by eliminating negotiation, you do that by figuring out WHY women don't to as well in negotiation, then restructuring the negotiation process to eliminate that disadvantage.

How about if women just grow some balls and learn how to negotiate so we don't have to "protect" them -- that only perpetuates the stereotype of the helpless woman, which you'd think real feminists would be against. Women can be every bit as aggressive and vicious as men; I can't see any reason why they would have a "natural" disadvantage in negotiation. It not like having a deep bass voice makes you a better negotiator, is it? Personally, I'd do better negotiating via email, perhaps everyone should do that to eliminate any gender discrepancies.