Well, except that you couldn't just find another dictator and quit your previous dictator. Otherwise, exactly the same.

That's an interesting theory but I don't think it fits the observed facts. Every time? Which particular wars were fought when UPC scanners came to supermarkets, or robots to assembly lines, or the automobile, or dozens of other times when technological advancement put a lot of people out of work?

Per http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html, in the US, there was a long time between unemployment in the 30s and the start of World War II. It's not clear that the unemployment used that surplus -- at least not for a while. And look at 1982. Which war used up that surplus of labor?

Even if I grant that what you've stated is true -- and I don't necessarily, although I do know there are a number of people who agree with you that the standard of living dropped for some time after the industrial revolution -- it wasn't exactly my point.

The parent poster stated, "There just aren't enough jobs." That is the Luddite Fallacy (Technological Unemployment if you prefer). In every case so far since the Industrial Revolution (UPC scanners, assembly line robots, ATMs, etc. etc. etc.) that hasn't been the case. So, I ask again -- what's different now?

The only "what's different" I can think of that might actually alter this equation is strong AI, and we're still a ways off from that (although I'm completely convinced it's possible).

I didn't make up the term, but would you prefer the term Technological Unemployment? We didn't really have many jobs lost due to automation before the industrial revolution, which was after 1 AD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite_fallacy

That's known as the Luddite fallacy and has been wrong every time it has been stated for the last 200 years. You will need to explain why this time is different.

You're right, and it would only cost IBM billions of dollars to re-ip their entire internal network so that you could squeak by with ipv4 for a few more months.

I actually said all of these things. "Now, you can certainly argue that there are external costs that are born by everyone and that you can't compete because those costs aren't allocated correctly. That's a fair argument -- and there are definitely externalities."

My point was simply that it isn't a "no-brainer". It requires quite a bit of thought, which you haven't done.

Oh, and the OP?
"It's incredibly cost effective, a typical nuclear plant will cost $8-12bn just in construction costs, so this is already 1/12th the price of nuclear in terms of construction."

The nuclear plant produces much more energy, and produces it day and night. Neglecting externalities, if you do some simple division, you find out that the nuclear plant is still cheaper per MWh. (I think I saw that elsewhere in the thread). You're too busy calling me an idiot to do simple division or try to put some thought into the cost of externalities -- so you're completely certain of your position without having any facts at all.

I'm saying that if it's a "no brainer", then you should be able to produce power more efficiently than current nuclear or coal plants. So, go sell it more cheaply. You'll make a lot of money. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Oh, you can't make money doing it? Why not? This doesn't seem like a "no brainer" to me. Now, you can certainly argue that there are external costs that are born by everyone and that you can't compete because those costs aren't allocated correctly. That's a fair argument -- and there are definitely externalities. I still don't think that it tips the balance to solar power quite yet for most applications, although as PV panels get more efficient then that will happen at some point. And solar has a huge advantage because it can easily be generated right where the power is needed, but also has a huge disadvantage because it doesn't produce in the dark.

My point is, it's definitely not a "no brainer". Just because YOU haven't thought of these things doesn't mean nobody needs to.

If it is a no brainer, go start a company and make a billion dollars! No....?

Wow, you're right! "sudo apt-get install openssh-server sshfs", configuring it, and then figuring out how to access that from every device you have is certainly easier than installing the DropBox app.

You and I (and probably a lot of people on Slashdot) know how to set up such things. Most people don't. And even those of us who do don't always enjoy reinventing the wheel. I completely get that you don't want or need to use such services, but the attitude of "why would ANYONE want such a thing" really baffles me.

And besides, I use yum, you insensitive clod!

And really, why should you buy power from the power company? It only works as long as the power company is in business. Get a generator, truck in some fuel I say!

They're not exactly equivalent, but I assume you actually know some valid answers to "why would I ever store stuff on a cloud service" and you're just being obstinate. (I admire obstinacy! ) And, of course, it's entirely possible to encrypt the data on a cloud service so that it remains "your business".

While I agree you have the right to post the above rant, I think you're a real jerk. :)

While I agree you have the right to tell them to GTFO, I think you're a real jerk for not letting them use a little water.

You can bring your own car in which comes out of gear and smushes a poor child. Clearly the right thing to do is to lock the parking lot so that dangerous cars can't be brought in.

I wouldn't worry about it. s.petry's subsequent post was offensive and unconstructive, so you didn't miss by much. :)