Markets don't chase buyers; they chase //dollars//.

The market isn't losing dollars, it's losing human participants. So the answer to your question of who will buy the stuff the robots make is easy: whoever has the money! The market will have to adjust to fewer, richer buyers, but they already know how to do that. Mass unemployment isn't going to counterbalance itself through self-reinforcing market mechanisms. It will just exclude people, and continue operating. It doesn't need all of us.

The main concerns about data location and sovereignty ARE privacy and security. These two viewpoints aren't opposed. Sure, worrying about the location of your data //for its own sake// is silly. The big reason people worry about where their data is is WITH WHOM it is: whether they can be trusted not to snoop it, sell it, carelessly lose it, or cave to a subpoena or DMCA takedown. That's the whole point.

I'm a little unclear on this concept. Why exactly would I want to have an ID chip implanted in my body for that I couldn't get from one that's in my pocket?

I suppose it would make it harder to steal, lose, or forget. But really? I haven't had any of those things happen to me in over 15 years.

And sometimes, I *want* to leave my ID at home.

It's called MONEY.

"Business is a good game. You keep score with money." --Nolan Bushnell

"This movie is anti-technology, because humans would never exploit foreign resources without the right tools for the job."

Did it ever occur to the poster that a creative, intelligent director who worked with the story's subject matter for years in production didn't encounter this "ironic" concept, and reject it out of hand as missing the point? It took me about 5 seconds.

"Technology" doesn't "force" us to strip-mine, deforest, privatize, pollute or pillage natural resources. Asserting so is an attempt to avoid responsibility for the uses we put our innovations to.

Let's try: "It is a poor workman that blames his tools."

For the same reason investment bankers wreck the entire economy by taking unwarranted risks with massive amounts of money, and still get government bailouts and multi-milion bonuses and call it "retaining talent".

Pay does not correlate with skill, talent, or value.

'I can't see any justification for making Microsoft give away Security Essentials [to counterfeit Windows users]'

Kind of like you can't see any justification for making Microsoft give a away... say... Windows?

And yet, pirates continue to manage getting copies of it.

Before you explore arguments about why to do or not do something, maybe you better work on the HOW first.

> //These idiosyncratic few do seem like Alan Moore's 'exporters,' giving us something genuinely new to investigate and explore.//

Questioning pop media analogies by using a pop media analogy. Brilliant!

Did you happen to catch the GSM SIM card slot in the photos?

Between inline spellcheckers and T9 input on my phone, I actually find my spelling improving.

An inline spell checker will tell you every time, patiently you've spelled a word wrong (as long as you don't have one that auto-corrects you), so the repetition teaches effectively. With T9, it's actually easier at times to spell out the whole word instead of trying to hack it to spell out the short hand phrases that used to be most efficient.

To say nothing of the fact that Netscape is the direct ancestor of Mozilla Firefox. Some defeat; it's like open licensing makes the browser undead.

If you measure "defeat" as a business game, where the losers are liquidated or go bankrupt, sure. But business isn't a measure of success users often concern themselves with.

Drop a guy in the wilderness, and prohibit him from making of tools.

Real smart.

The question is, how cheap ubiquitous are what tools? Sure, you might lose your phone - but teaching kids to weave cloth is not exactly an efficient use of their time.

> ...forced to tattoo shirtless adult inmates who eventually turn him on...

Wait, did that just say...?

> ...forced to tattoo shirtless adult inmates who eventually turn on him...

oh. ok. right.

WORK LESS.

If you spend so much time working that you literally can't afford to stay healthy, then YOUR WORK IS BAD FOR YOU. Don't start fooling yourself just because everybody is forced to work that much. Cut your hours.

I suppose I can understand if it's censorship if Wales, et al., were interfering with consensual, non-duressed communication of wikipedians posting about the kidnapping and the wiki audience. But how is it censorship if the details of the kidnapping remain in publicly-accessible revision history?