Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Money for his defense (Score 2) 294

He might need some of that hoard to pay for his defense. I don't know that going cheap on this will be in his interest.

According to Wired he's using a public defender.

Remember, Ulbricht was living in a shared apartment and working out of a library. If his defense is that he's not the guy running Silk Road, it would be suspicious for a man in his situation to suddenly have an expensive defense team.

Maybe he could start a Kickstarter to fund... well, not his defense, because that's not a creative work, so to speak, but a DOCUMENTARY about his defense, including people who could just check by to see if he was dead yet.

Comment Re:Sure, to lower paying jobs (Score 1) 674

What then becomes the problem (such as at my local ShopRite) is that when there are long lines and only a certain number of self-checks, there aren't any cashiers waiting for you. But you wait, because you need food. And the company has already stomped out competition in the local area, so you're still waiting through a line of 10 people who don't know how to scan their own groceries, because they've already fired half the cashiers who could have taken you. And if you bopped over to Pathmark, it'd be the same situation. Of course, then there are those markets far enough away from bus routes who know they can just cater to the non-peasants, and they charge higher prices for staples but lower prices for healthy items.

Comment Re:Sure, to lower paying jobs (Score 1) 674

Though continuing to increase our prison population is one "safety net" we seem to be dealing with okay. Criminalize more and more things, increase enforcement constantly, you have an almost never-ending service industry of containing human beings. Unless you decide there's no reason to keep them around anymore, that is.

Comment Re:Sure, to lower paying jobs (Score 3, Insightful) 674

What is of more concern is that the proliferation of technical jobs is gradually excluding people of less than average intelligence - a nontrivial fraction of the population.

Exactly. Because nothing ever goes wrong with millions of stupid, angry people with lots of time on their hands.

Comment Re:it starts one way but ends another (Score 1) 674

That's one way of defining the average (mean) standard of living, yes. But that does not necessarily mean that the median standard of living also increases in the same scenario, without stronger assumptions on the distribution.

Grade-school level statistics actually showing themselves to be useful. My fifth-grade self's jaw just hit the floor.

Comment Re:This article assumes... (Score 1) 674

I'm more inclined to believe in the second possibility. Social pressure would not permit the former IMO. But regardless, my post was just to criticize this idea that because Luddites were wrong once, during the industrial revolution, that their idea of jobs being lost to automation would be forever false. It is bound to happen sometime this century. We will eventually need to find an alternative to our current economic and monetary system based on a jobless (yet productive) society.

I think we share the same hope, though Bangladesh is a good case study of #1 being enacted as we speak.

Comment Re:Telemarketer (Score 1) 674

Also, the reason we 'need' so many telemarketers is because we can't use autodialers for telemarketing. Government regulations stop robots from taking that field.

...which is obviously an unfair intrusion by government into a problem (i.e. spending all that money on employees) that could be solved by the market.

Comment Re:Luddites aren't obsolete yet (Score 2) 674

In my area, we now have garbage trucks that pick up (standardized) trash cans. Presumably, this leads to fewer "garbage men" - who used to be the archetypal unskilled laborers. But the few garbage men that remain now must be skilled as truck drivers.

I actually know a guy who worked as a garbageman who got replaced by automation. It paid good money, because he had qualifications that most people didn't. He had the strength and agility to lift 70 lb barrels into the truck, hang on for dear life at speed, tolerate a "variety" of weather conditions and a living situation that allowed him to go to work at 4 or 5 AM. Unfortunately, when the demand for those skills and qualifications evaporated overnight, there weren't that many package handling jobs to absorb the influx, and his earning ability dropped just as quickly. Kinda sucks to be forced into a 6-12 month unpaid vacation while trying to find money to get trained for something else at wages that will never match what he made before. No way around it, of course, those jobs are just gone and he understands that. He's got another job, so I guess you could say his job wasn't "killed," it just became something else that didn't pay as well even after becoming proficient.

And now we have a potentially very angry man who has the strength and agility to lift 70 lb barrels into the truck and hang on for dear life at speed. Nothing could possibly go wrong.

Comment Re:Sure, to lower paying jobs (Score 1) 674

You're essentially increasing the productivity of mankind per capita. There's nothing wrong with *that* - the one thing wrong is that once we have that productivity, we randomly deny the output to others even though nothing prevents us. Well, I guess that societies can get outdated as much as business models and technologies do.

Of the 10 of you, we've replaced 9 of your jobs with a machine. Steve can keep his job, unless someone amongst you is willing to do it for less. Oh, and we're not gonna feed anyone who's not hauling his weight.

Slashdot Top Deals

Arithmetic is being able to count up to twenty without taking off your shoes. -- Mickey Mouse

Working...