But an assembly line manned by robots? Why should that be cheaper in China? Is capital that much cheaper?

Even if wages and other costs were equal, the location advantage is substantial. It's not that it's cheaper in China, but that it's cheaper in the huge manufacturing hubs. You have suppliers and manufacturers for just about every single component you need without long-distance shipping, and a deep pool of design and manufacturing expertise working in the area.

That's not to say you can't manufacture efficiently elsewhere (we have plenty of recent examples such as the Raspberry Pi), but that the advantages has as much to do with the concentration of resources as with the cost of labour and regulations. And of course, as this inudstry becomes ever more automated, it no longer matters much for jobs where it happens any longer.

You can use the exact same arguments against fly-by-wire technology. Yet, that is now the norm, with not a mechanical linkage in sight.

Grandparent post still stands. These reviewers will gradually be replaced by others who never had any experience scheduling the work.

I hadn't caught that, thanks. This makes the system a lot more interesting.

That's backwards. Philosophy only solves its nagging questions by *resorting* to math or logic or science.

The trend suggests that in the limiting case, humans are not intelligent.

Sorry, but the burden of proof lies with CAGW advocates, not skeptics. You're seeking to overturn the world's economic system and replace it with government control. That extreme a change requires strong proof, and it's just not there.

And I note the standard Slashdot moderation is in full effect: "I disagree with it, therefore it must be trolling."

Science isn't decided by consensus. It's decided by predictive power and explanatory power. Nothing else. CAGW has neither.

I'm an atheist.

damned autocorrect.

that should be "the same old tired leftist government takeover of economies".

I'll believe in CAGW when the scientists quit fudging the numbers and it still shows it...when they can explain historical data that contradicts the theory...and when they can explain why the warming has stopped for the last couple of decades.

As it is, he fudging is so blatant that "climate science" is nothing of the sort...it's a Trojan horse for the same lod tired leftist government takeoff of economies. That trick never works.

All right, so Adelson evades the ban by paying the Times' owners $3 billion for the paper, runs his piece - indistinguishable from a full-page ad - and then sells the paper back to the owners for $3 billion less the price of a full-page ad.

There's still plenty of ways - available only to the rich - to evade your ban. You're not helping your claimed problem, you're making it worse.

Your argument is like the old joke:

"Will you sleep with me if I gave you a million bucks!"

"Yeah!"

"How about $25?"

"What do you think I am??!"

"We've already established that. Now all we're doing is haggling over the price."

If it's wrong to spend millions to publish political speech but not billions, then you're just haggling over the price.

It's easy. Put a second countdown on the red light for the cars.