I think a libation is in order.
I think I'll go down to my basement and gather up a buch of old through-hole resistors, caps, potentiometers, 555 timers and 74-series TTL logic. Then I'll fill a 40 oz bottle with them and slowly pour it all out on the ground.
Then maybe I'll scribble my full name, address and phone number on a 3-sheet carbon paper form one last time.
My hovercraft is full of eels.
... unless they've made a slight math error in their navigation computations.
Names don't necessarily hold back any language. For example, having a name that's exactly the same as a below-average schoolwork grade clearly doesn't prevent you from becoming one of the most prevalent programming languages in computer history.
The problem is, gold has almost no intrinsic value. Its main usefulness is its scarcity. If you start bringing back large quantities, your "trillions of dollars" are going to disappear in a poof of nothingness.
The Spaniards discovered a similar problem when they appropriated the large amounts of gold easily available in the New World. They soon found themselves in a financial crisis brought on by the plummeting value of gold.
He didn't claim it was an analogy. He claimed that one is the other.
Yes, copyright infringement is stealing.
Factually incorrect.Copyright infringement and theft have completely different legal definitions and different laws apply to each.
You're starting off on a false premise, and using mathy-looking letter variables doesn't make your logic any less sloppy.
The memory, as little as it is, the Voyager spacecraft, must be of a different sort. Launched in the late 1970s, the electronics is still functioning, although with a few issues. That'll soon be four times longer that the Rover.
The Voyager craft were intended to operate for many years. The mars rovers weren't. The mars rovers also reside in a much harsher environment than the space probes which float weightlessly in a vacuum at a constant temperature.
There was no reason to design the flash memory to last much longer than the expected lifetimes of the wheel bearings or solar panels. Just because by some miracle those both lasted much longer than expected, it doesn't mean that additional investments of resources into the memory would have been justified.
That, I tell friends, is why I'm happy to drive a 30+ year old car. It has issues, but the hardware it's built from is inherently more long-lived than that in today's cars. A crank-up window just keeps working. One driven by an electric motor doesn't.
False. Cars from that era were routinely sent to the scrapyard when they were less than 10 years old because they were rusted beyond repair. Now the average age of US cars is over ten years, twice what it was in the 1960s. Old cars also required constant maintenance of problem-prone mechanical parts such as ignition points and carburetors.
I think that's the vendor which provided the costumes and props for the original "Wizard of Oz" film.
Your repetitive "developed vs 3rd" world red herring is tiresome.
We're talking about future developments that will apply everywhere.
You certainly could get to a point where it's just too much of a bother to even keep track of a low-achieving human employee vs. having a robot do it. Those people could essentially become unemployable. Some people could be encouraged to try harder to achieve, but in many cases you can't get blood out of a turnip. Every year the percentage of people who fail to make the grade could increase as robots gain capabilities.
I'm sure your fine with that because they're receiving what they're worth. But if it's not handled correctly, these hoards of "useless" people could end up stepping out of your little free market box, turning into angry mobs and burning everything down.
If the demand for productive labor can be filled by more robots, the value of human labor can still stay at zero.
What "actual issue"? I just soundly disproved everything you stated.
There must be some kind of vague concept in your head that you can't seem to actually express, but you're just sure that I "don't get it".
The whole point of this topic is that as the supply of labor (provided by workers and/or robots) goes up, the value goes down. Eventually, many people's market value may end up to be essentially zero vs. robots, regardless of what kind of country they live in. You would then probably advocate that we encourage them to work for free; problem solved!
The approaches of the past may not apply it all in the potentially a drastically different future dominated by self-directed automation.
The problem is that median wages have been stagnating for decades.
Your solution to the problem is to lower them further.
If all else fails, lower your standards.
