The only way to increase wealth by reducing the number of jobs is to increase the worth of the remaining jobs or to increase material trade.

Jobs are a form of trade (trading your services for money). Every trade/transaction provides both parties an increase of value or worth; the employer deems the services received to be worth more than the money, and the employee deems the money to be worth more than his or her time. Throw billions or trillions of transactions together, you have an economy.

So reducing the number of jobs (transactions) directly negatively impacts the economy.

Fine, but if the jobs are better and/or material trade increases, doesn't that build wealth?

Even material trades rely on jobs. Every bit of wealth in our economy can be traced back to some physical labor. Gold, oil, food, and all materials are worthless until someone harvests those items. Many items also are refined or otherwise made more valuable by labor, such as sewing cotton to make a shirt. So it all goes back to jobs.

I doubt the loss in number of jobs will be offset by how valuable the remaining jobs are. Even if it is, scarcity will eventually become a factor, as material possessions lose value (due to consumption or depreciation) and only the elite robot owners/operators will have replacement items. Those elites will have all the wealth, and more and more of the remainder of the human population will lose wealth.

So I highly doubt wealth is innately created by destroying jobs, and even if it is, it will only serve to increase the chasm between the rich and the poor.

So, essentially we get $10/month Sprint access (plus Wi-Fi calling if you're into that sort of thing)?

Our society, democratic/republican/whatever, has decided through legal means (enacting and enforcing laws) to place restrictions on the use of public roads. Driver licensing is such an example.

No, you made that up.

Not true.

Again, no.

There's lots of things tax dollars provide that you can't just use any way you want. Society has decided that citizens cannot access restricted government areas that are built with tax dollars. You don't have a right to fly a NASA rocket. You don't have a right to take a soldier's gun and shoot people. You don't have a right to rape a government official.

You do have a right to learn about how society and government work. I encourage doing so, lest you might continue to appear as an idiot.

Agreed, if someone is using some ancient esoteric device, they need to understand that the only free-as-in-beer option is to live with an older kernel.

Now they have plenty of paid options. Get a newer, better supported device (if available). Pay to get new security fixes ported back to the older kernel. Pay to get support for the device in the newer kernel. Or, of course, they could try their hand at making kernel changes.

Keeping a modern platform stuck in the past will suck the life out of it.

Usage of social media is equivalent to unsupervised communication with people outside the prison walls. To my knowledge this has always been a big deal and whatever technology is used shouldn't make much of a difference in punishment. Even seemingly innocent communications can be forms of steganography.

Also, I'm pretty sure inmates who commit murder will be charged with murder.

Another downside, you need to keep that light on all the time (at least when you're using the signal).

It's only false advertising if objective statements are provably false. "Sound is the betterz" is not an objective statement.

But you might be able to win a case if you can show that several run-of-the-mill Ethernet cables produce the same error rate that the $10,000 cable does. Then by showing that the same transmission results in the same audio output, you could then prove that the $10,000 cable provides no sound quality benefits as it claims.

I suspect this cable has at least a tiny advantage in error rate, so it comes down to whether it's worth $9990 to someone for that tiny advantage, which is subjective.

I'm curious if they will offer bundles with Office 365 and Xbox Live Gold. Say at $299/year, you can put Windows on 5 computers, Office on 5 computers, and you get up to 5 Xbox Live Gold accounts.

You tell me:

http://www.thestar.com/news/wo...

That is the thing, they worry about it even if the system has been designed to make iinjection practically impossible. They (management) worry because, no matter what guarantees are in place, they don't want to be known as the idiot manager that allowed a policy that somehow enabled someone to find a SQL injection hole and literally wipe out millions or billions in money.

Stupid policy? From our perspective, yes. The pain point is that such policy leaves our passwords weak. My bank passwords are typically some of my weakest passwords simply because I have no choice. What I don't understand is why some banks make you use short passwords. My strongest pssword is a correct-horse-battery-staple type of 30+ characters that uses only lowercase and spaces.

But until banks stop using SQL databases, this will continue. Two-factor authentication is the better alternative anyway, so that will be what gets implemented.

I think the reasoning is more precaution than anything. Direct SQL injection has for a long time been the default mode for working with databases. Just because developers know how to prevent it, and are preached it, doesn't mean someone won't flub it up at some time on accident and open a hole that brings their entire system down.

They aren't paper thin. We still have a long way to go. I wouldn't mind having a phone as thin and light as a credit card. Then it would feel like a... credit card, which you know, feels fine in my hand.

Oh, they have to? Really? So they already know they won't be successful, and are preemptively creating features to blame for their future lousy market share?

You are asserting that trying to distinguish themselves in a cutthroat market--that sees little success from newcomers--is considered a poor excuse. Yet somehow, creating features that (presumably will in retrospect) suck is a sign of genius to those they are trying to impress?

Interesting logic there.

Sure, but my response was to Immerman's post asserting that the US was in part responsible for WWII. The US was not an Entente nation and did not ratify its entry into the Treaty of Versailles, but (led by Wilson) backed a more reasonable and peaceful policy that wouldn't have pissed Germany off so much.

I'd like to think that the Nazis and Hitler's imperialistic and genocidal attitude had something to do with that too.