"And how will all those unemployed people pay for the robotically manufactured goods? " I answered that question if you bothered to read beyond the first line.

Well no, I don't expect people to endorse socialism. Socialism is when government owns the factories and controls the industry. Instead, I am are talking about taxation and welfare. Not socialism. It's better than fascism (forcing people to hire humans instead of purchase robots) suggested by the people who are anti robots.

I am sure there will be companies offering testing/certification services and also companies offering facilities for practical work. It'll be sort of like homeschooling.

Unemployment checks. Savings. Welfare (like how Alaska pays people from their oil revenue). Lots of ways to pay for it. The replacement will be gradual over a decade or two minimum.

Also, instead of paying $200,000 for a college education, you can get the education 100% free online (udacity, khan academy etc) and instead buy shares in a robot-using company. People will be able to pursue things they are interested in, they will just have a much greater safety net and more freedom to try out ideas.

Of course this is the utopian vision, but at least you must concede that the reality will not be a dystopia either.

The economy functions fine with workers and companies right? Why wouldn't it function with robotic workers and companies?

1. People can own shares in companies that own robots. Those shares will pay dividends (or increase in value etc).

2. The government can tax the profits of the robot run factories. These profits can provide a dividend check to citizens who would hopefully invest wisely in the robot companies.

Rather than work, people's time will be spent trying to figure out which robot companies perform well. You can use a computer program to do it .. which will let you decide if you want to be a risky investor etc. If you want to design robots for extra income, you can do that too.

I didn't say products should be free. People will have to pay for the manufactured goods. Think of it this way -- it's the same as working. Instead of you physically going to work and getting a paycheck. Your robot does it for you.
People who make bad investment choices will be worse off than those who make wiser choices. Hopefully nobody will starve, because government will have enough tax revenue for a welfare scheme that provides the bare essentials.

Obviously you're willfully ignorant of the pirate party, as well as about the other issues you mentioned. Take a few minutes to research topics before spewing nonsensical stuff.

Mobile operators dont need more bandwidth. They can build more towers and the problem is solved cell phones automatically reduce power output and prevent themselves from interfering with each other.

Why don't they have RTG's? When one crashes in your backyard you'll be glad.

I have the Samsung chromebook, it's awesome. I also possess about 6 other laptops including the latest 13 inch Retina Mac. Guess what I like taking about with me? The Chromebook. For web browsing it's responsive, fast. I can even watch netflix on it. Having an SSD instead of an HDD helps a lot.

I bought it at Best Buy, the guy tried everything under the sun to dissuade me from buying it. He told me all the negatives didn't list a single positive. Are those guys under commission or what? It seemed like he rathered me walk out without purchasing anything.

Not all kids in the world need vaccines (do yours?) some have vaccines & red cross already and don't want a lifetime of dependency. You realize that there is a range of wealth in the world, right? Some people are poor, but not starving.

It doesn't, but I wish he hadn't made the timecube rant run off into anti-semitism .. that part sorta ruins it.

LOL .. that timecube .. time crystals .. hmm that dude could have been onto something.

So you rather be recorded discretely by a phone in a pocket or held in hands casually? At least with Google Glass you are able to tell you might be recorded as someone is staring at you or wearing one of those.

From the article: "How can something move, and keep moving forever, without expending energy? It seemed an absurd idea — a major break from the accepted laws of physics. "

Isn't that what Newton's first law of motion says? Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. Clearly the article isn't explaining this properly.