Wow, I haven't actually logged in to Slashdot in a long time. A long long time.

So, I'm old. Like really old. I did Unix before Linux. I did Windows 1.0. I still, after all these years, miss the Turbo Pascal editor. I use Total Commander.

Far as I'm concerned, if I *have* to use the mouse for your stupid application, you've failed.

But actually, Windows 10 is a step in the right direction. I can't think of a thing in W10 that can't be done with the keyboard. Here's an example. Want to swap your displays? Type Windows key / type "display" / use the arrow keys to move the little pictures of your monitors.

It's actually kinda cool. Windows 10 does get one thing wrong. The currently focused app is not sufficiently highlighted. The currently focused app has it's titlebar text in black whereas other apps get gray. Pisses me off.

And, actually, Office 2016 is also a step in the right direction. There are actually keyboard commands for pretty much everything. Now, if you hate Micro$oft, I don't blame you. If you are going to hate Windoze forevah no matter what, I can understand that. But if you want to or have to use it, if you keep an open mind you might be pleasantly surprised with it. I know I've been.

Cheers.

You have stated two options:

1) Most people relax all day, the most intelligent get luxury in exchange for work

2) Technology is destroyed and we regress

I'll throw out some more:

3) The few enslave the many.

4) We blow ourselves back to the stone age

Of course, any of these could happen to societies rather than the whole species.

More than one fiction writer has envisioned a post-scarcity society. Here's one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture

Or maybe they'll off us because we might become a threat at some point in the future.

Or maybe they're a run-away machine culture that indiscriminately converts all matter it encounters into computronium.

Or maybe playing with sapient species is fun.

That's a viewpoint, sure. My guess is that you don't work in the defense industry. Just a guess.

Citation needed. Contractors to classified projects keep their materials classified. If ABC Corp. supplies, say, a classified navigation system to a classified weapons project, it is certainly a requirement that ABC Corp treats everything related to the nav system as classified.

Sure. Procedures are occasionally broken, within and without govt. But you make it sound like suppliers don't have, and are not required to have, safeguards.

Nope. Need to know how it works. Need to be able to examine every aspect of it. Need to be able to model it and predict its behavior in different situations.

Your employer owes you nothing. And it will give you nothing unless you metaphorically put a gun to its head. It will take everything you've got, your time, yours skills, the best hours of your days, and the best days of your life, and give you *nothing* for it, if you let it. Oh, it's possible that an employer here or there has some notion of mutually assured advantage, that together all stakeholders can work together to everyone's mutual advantage, but even if such a philosophy isn't a smoke screen with which to take everything you've got, unless you have your finger on the big red button, it's just talk.

If your owners had their way, you'd be working 20 hours a day for a breadcrust, and be happy for it. The only reason they give you *anything* -- vacation, health care, a window, weekends, "free" soda, is because it is economically advantageous to them to do so.

So, is a "company" legally and ethically responsible to consider only the well-being ("maximize the return") of their owners at the cost of every other stakeholder?

What about legal and ethical responsibilities to employees, customers, community, and environment?

In maximizing the well-being of the owners, does that mean they should minimize the well being of everyone else?

If your statements are true, then a "company" has a legal and ethical obligation to do everything it can to decrease its legal obligation to anyone but the owners. Why stop at "legal"? The very idea of "legal" implies that there is some interest at play besides that of the owners. If the well-being of the owners is all that matters, then any action, whether legal or not, that benefits the owners is not only permissible, but ethically required.

The OP (and the author of TFA) need to think longer-term.

Whether GG succeeds or not in its first incarnation is a completely different issue than whether it will succeed in the end.

The future is here, boys and girls. Humans have been steadily integrating more and more technology into our bodies ever since . . . well, ever since we've had bodies and technology.

Glasses, hearing aids, artificial limbs, portable writing implements, carriable cameras, backpacks . . . the amount of wearable technology is staggering. So we know people will wear technology, and will integrate it into their bodies.

Do people want to take pictures? Yes. They want to take pictures. All the time. Everywhere. Every form factor that you can use to capture an image, people use. People carry around big DSLRs. Compact cameras. Cell phones. And when Google Glass gets to be easy-enough, and cheap-enough, and common-enough, they'll do that, too.

Face it. We are well on our way to recording every freaking minute of our lives, from every possible angle. And Google will store it and search it for us. The only real question left is, will we be the subject or the object of our future? Will the govt and the corps be the only ones who record and use the moments of our lives, or will we as well?

Take back the future. The ability for people to be able to invisibly record anything and everything will also let us watch the cops and the crooks. That's a good thing.

And earpieces and Segway? Actually, more people don't use earpieces because it doesn't work well enough. Yet. When I can stick something in my ear that's near invisible, picks up my whisper, blocks out the ambient noise, and doesn't need recharging all the time, why would I ever take it off?

And look how long it took for bikes to become ubiquitous. Give Segway a chance. Pretty soon you'll see SegShare along BikeShare.

Yes, this.

Not sure why this is rated troll.

Citation needed. Also, what's necessary for a US citizen to stay permanently in Europe? Hypothetically.

Okay, I've heard of a moped Jesus, but not a marzipan pope.

Nice Bowie reference.

I would be curious as to what GP's policy is regarding his kids' usage of the internet from the ages of 2 and up. On multiple devices. Sure, easy enough to monitor a 2-year-old. 10-year-old, mebbe so. It gets much harder to monitor much older kids' internet usage, especially when there are multiple devices. There are lots of kids who can handle the unlimited games/videos/porn of the internet, and some who can't. The GP has one thing right, though, it's the parents' problem.

Back in the day there was some sort of limit to what kids had access to. Now it is unlimited and it is everywhere. It is definitely a challenge for the modern parent.

Hey now. Okay, there're the elected officials, but for every representative or senator, there're a couple hundred other people who work on Capitol Hill.