Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Robot vs Machine (Score 1) 110

by drinkypoo (#49158299) Attached to: Foxconn Factories' Future: Fewer Humans, More Robots

By calling them robots instead of machines, the article writers are playing on emotional strings of people, trying to provoke a larger response than otherwise.

Robots are like other machines which have automated away jobs in obvious ways. They are also unlike them in other ways, which will enable them to seize more jobs. And there was significant social upheaval when we moved to manufacturing. It wasn't all for the better, although obviously it provided opportunities for more people. It's also come at a significant cost in sustainability.

Comment: Why make the same complaint every time? (Score 2) 110

by drinkypoo (#49158291) Attached to: Foxconn Factories' Future: Fewer Humans, More Robots

Someone makes this complaint every time one of these stories happens. The answer is always the same: Apple posts the big profits, and everyone knows who Apple is. When you say that it seems to come from a desire to attack the company which is recently most successful, you're half right. That's a means to an end. Apple is most visible, so by attacking Apple, you're getting the most visibility. You could simply attack Foxconn directly — these days they actually sell stuff with their name on it — but statistically nobody has actually seen their logo and "connected" (ugh) with any of their products. So frankly, it's really smart to attack Apple as opposed to Foxconn or some other vendor which uses them, and it's really stupid to keep whining about it. (By extension, what does that make me?) But maybe this comment can be referred back to by posterity.

Comment: Re:Automation is Dependent on Design for Manufactu (Score 1) 110

by drinkypoo (#49158287) Attached to: Foxconn Factories' Future: Fewer Humans, More Robots

At the assembly level it isn't so easy to automate with a lot of the designs.

The designs will simply change to make manufacturing easier, and the designs of the robots will change to meet them partway. It's not like this problem can't be "solved", it just hasn't been solved yet.

Sooner or later, the whole phone will just be laminated into one brick which can only be taken apart with exotic chemicals so toxic that you need to keep them sealed away from all that is holy. And then, the terrorists^Wcorporations will have won... but regardless, there will be no need for human assembly, or really any involvement at all. Designs and materials and of course some of the completed parts go in, devices get pooped out on the other end. At least the phones will finally be waterproof.

Comment: Re: Foxconn Factories' Future: Fewer Humans, More (Score 2) 110

by drinkypoo (#49158273) Attached to: Foxconn Factories' Future: Fewer Humans, More Robots

Oddly, we seem to have managed to get past the introduction of the assembly line without the sort of problems you're predicting

Have we?

humanity is still here, its population is still growing, and technology is still advancing.

Whee! But, with a tip of the cap to Greg Graffin, progress is not intelligently planned. If you're playing a strategy and you use up the resources in early play then you're going to have a bad time.

Granted, life is more complex than a game with a fixed tech tree. Who knows what technology we'll invent tomorrow, right?

Comment: Re:Foxconn Factories' Future: Fewer Humans, More R (Score 1) 110

by drinkypoo (#49158267) Attached to: Foxconn Factories' Future: Fewer Humans, More Robots

With robotics who do we get rid of the employers or the employees. It makes far more logical sense to eliminate the employers, rather than the employees. The employees employ the robots thus eliminating the need for employers.

That also eliminates the need for cheap disposable shit that will disintegrate in short order and generate another visit to the crap shack. So it actually eliminates the need for many of the robots as well.

Comment: Re:Xfce 5 should be based on Qt. (Score 1) 31

by drinkypoo (#49158251) Attached to: Xfce 4.12 Released

The portability of GTK+ is, to put it politely, utter rubbish. X11 is the only platform where it isn't a disgrace.

The portability of GTK+ is also fairly irrelevant when it comes to a desktop for Unix. As long as you can use it with X11 today and either Wayland or X11 tomorrow, it's a suitable toolkit for the development of a Unix DE.

It would be nice to see GIMP and other apps move away from GTK, but uh, GIMP, GTK, etc. But I don't think it matters much for XFCE. If anything, what I want is for my DE not to be based on a major toolkit. This breaks down when it gets to the file manager, but it's not clear that the fm even needs to be closely integrated with the desktop unless you want icons on your desktop. I don't really feel that I need a "desktop", as it were. I only use it on Windows, and then only because it's easy to get to.

Byte your tongue.