Indeed.
"An Underground History of American Education" covers this exact problem.
Mathematicians and Physicists have been pointing this out for years
Automation increases jobs.
Automation does require the displaced employee to get another job. This may require retraining, returning to school to upgrade or acquire a skill set that is marketable. The may require a change of career. Most displaced employees will find other jobs.
Imagine the Chinese, Indian etc workers as robots[1]. Have all the US workers who've lost their jobs to these "robots" experienced the increased number of jobs you mention? Now imagine what happens when Foxconn et all replace those Chinese workers with real robots (as Foxconn is actually doing).
What will these Chinese workers do? Some of them will take your higher end jobs: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetw...
From the article:
And it turns out that the job done in China was above par â" the employee's "code was clean, well written, and submitted in a timely fashion. Quarter after quarter, his performance review noted him as the best developer in the building,"
If the population growth remains at X% and the Earth resource/wealth extraction rate does not increase by much more than X% if robots and automation take some human jobs, there will NOT be replacement jobs that pay out the same amount of wealth. Because in most cases automation is about reducing costs and increasing profits. Furthermore the resource extraction rate cannot continue increasing as long as we are stuck on Earth[2].
See also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
tldr; the automobile destroyed the jobs of the horses, there was no increase in replacement jobs that the horses could do.
And that is what will happen to most humans once the robots get good enough.
[1] Many of these workers are actually doing jobs that are "robotic" and could be automated- it's just that they are cheaper and more flexible than current robots and someone else paid for much of the manufacturing).
The number may have been assigned by the USB WG, but it was the manufacturer who decided to check for it in the drivers. Either way, the use of that number is a necessary part of creating drop-in-compatible hardware.
Of course, they can't advertise their product with the USB logo if they're not following the USB specifications, including the use of assigned ID numbers, but that's a separate matter. There is no requirement for non-members to adhere to the ID numbers assigned by the USB WG so long as they don't claim to be fully compliant.
It is a textbook trademark case, but you're referring to the wrong part of the textbook. Consider the case of the game consoles which wouldn't operate without a bit-for-bit copy of the manufacturer's logo in the ROM, a trick intended to shut out unlicensed game developers. The court ruled that third-party developers could include the logo image without a license despite the fact that it was both copyrighted and trademarked, because the manufacturer had chosen to make it necessary for compatibility.
They use FTDI's USB VID/PID - this is representing yourself as an FTDI chip.
Only to the computer, which doesn't really count. These IDs could reasonably be considered part of the interface to the hardware; exceptions have been granted for both copyright and trademarks in the past when the infringement was required for the sake of compatibility. The real question is whether the buyer was misled to believe that these chips were manufactured by FTDI. It seems that this was indeed the case, but that's a separate issue from the USB VID/PID.
Exactly.
Next in the news! Mark Zuckerberg takes a shit. News at 11 !!
Doubt it.
It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do. -- Jerome Klapka Jerome