Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Incoming (Score 1) 273

You did in fact say "drones". It was the very first few words of your post - "If you use drones/"

What I said was "drones/robots/self-driving cars or some combination" - clearly indicating any and all. Not "drones" per se.

But even military drones can't cope with all (or even most) weather.

Today's tech is not the end game by any means. So using today's capabilities to make claims about tomorrow's likely circumstance needs to extend the progress curve before it can be taken seriously. IOW, the fact that a military drone can't cope with some weather at this time is in no way an indication that the same type of drone won't be able to in the near future (and the progress being made in LDNLS systems is a very strong indication they probably will.) Same for everything else. What it boils down to: Yes, today there still are lots of delivery jobs. But in a not-too-distant tomorrow, there won't be. Same for many other sectors.

Prepare or be blindsided. It's just that simple.

Comment Re:Dilemma Solution (Score 1) 361

Again, without politicians and generally the government making it artificially harder for people to start businesses people start businesses, at least they try.

Now I don't know what business somebody may decide to start, you think that for some reason you know what kind of business they will start. Your entire line of thinking goes like this: somebody will attempt to start the same business as some established company. This somebody will know exactly all of the processes that will go into building the business, so they will start with automation and will avoid hiring people.

OK, I beg to differ. When you start a business you do not know the processes that will have to be set up so you cannot automate upfront unless the business you are starting is something that has been done many times before. Trying to compete with a number of established businesses where the automation solutions are already well understood and can be purchased as long as you have the capital and believing that you can do it better ... I guess that is one way to go.

I am not talking about that type of a startup though, I am talking about starting a business that makes sense for that person, possibly it is a local service, maybe it is a new type of a product. If it is a new type of a product, the manufacturing will most likely be outsourced anyway, but creating the product will take man power (actual human power).

If it is a new (local?) service then it is not at all clear that there is any form of existing automation that can be applied immediately and besides, again - it is costly to buy an automated solution just to find out that your processes cannot use the solution and it has to be redone. It is *cheaper* to hire somebody while working out the processes, looking for clients, etc.

Finding clients can be partially automated (lists, directories, robocalls?) but it is not clear that these strategies will lead to sales without a person closing the deal.

In any case, if somebody decides to start a business hand making bongs they will have to have these hands.

Comment Re:Well, perhaps you *should* be worried (Score 1) 361

It sounds like you haven't used any actual software development/engineering skills in a long time

Heh heh. Yes, well, I suppose I can see how you might get that impression. However, no. It's just that a lot of the make work is gone, and so I can concentrate on the meat of the problem instead of having to write menu systems, widget systems, threading, etc. Here is an example of the stuff I write. That software is pretty much state of the art for the sector it addresses. It offers some things that nothing else in the market segment does, and it's very high performance. None of the core functionality comes from anywhere but my head. But having said that, there's a shitload of stuff I didn't have to write to make the app work, and I have the source code to all of it too, so generally speaking, nothing is "going away" such that it would get all up in my face.

As for my career, I'm retired. Already made my nest; I do this for fun now.

Comment Interesting (Score 1) 84

Ya have to wonder what this speculative subrosa funding operation would do when presented with a bill for the five billion dollar hit Samsung took with their stupid non-replicable battery, though. "Sure, no problem"?

At that point, assuming remuneration was not forthcoming, might be best to part ways with said public agency.

Comment Re:It's all about the battery (Score 1) 84

We know they want to create disposable phones, because then they get to sell you a new one.

However, this issue shows that this particular reduction in function can cost them billions in immediate costs, plus loss of reputation. If this doesn't change the approach, then we know they're stupid, and some people will make decisions on that basis.

Not that I'm surprised Samsung continues to act stupidly. After all, they can only see 1/4 down the financial road, because they have allowed themselves to be captured by a diseased financial system. Same for everyone else that copies the thin-over-all mindset.

Comment It's all about the battery (Score 2, Insightful) 84

If the battery is still a non-replicable unit, then I will know they haven't learned the obvious, profound lesson:

Non-replaceable battery: Battery problem? Phone is garbage. Write off entire cost. Purchaser has nothing. Seller loses everything.

Replaceable battery: Battery problem? Send new battery. Preserve most of purchaser's value and seller's income.

Comment Re:Machines replacing bank tellers? (Score 1) 273

The mob does a lot of idiotic things and eventually these things turn around and bite it in the ass while restructuring everything around. Restructuring is going to happen now, that the outsourcing and automation will remove the power from the mob and will ensure that the people who actually produce stuff have their proper say in this world.

Comment Re:Dilemma Solution (Score 1) 361

Correct, it may be running at a reduced efficiency but who says that as a business you have some sort of a right not to have competition? Nothing says that. Be innovative, come up with businesses that are required and are not there yet, not with businesses that are well established and whose operating costs are so low you cannot compete on the price (if your entire point is to compete on the price).

Compete on something else. It is probably even possible to compete on the fact that you hire humans, not robots, who knows. The point is that with the government rules, regulations and taxes not there, people will invent businesses and automation is not an immediate thing, new businesses do not have clear cut processes, they are fluid and changing until they find their way, automating that is not possible until we have a full fledged human like AI available in a human like body. But that is not going to be cheap, with no regulations people would be able to compete at the very least on the initial price of the capital investment vs the operation costs of a wage labourer.

Comment Re:Republicans (Score 1) 459

Wow, just sad to see on another site supposedly populated by smart people so many still buy into the DemS vS Reps shell game. Perhaps a few quotes from men more powerful then I will ever be will enlighten you...

Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21 1864 "I see in the near future a crisis approaching; corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

Mayer Amschel Rothschild "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws."

Comment Well, perhaps you *should* be worried (Score 2) 361

wake me up when they can replace software developers.

I was an asm programmer until they created compilers. Asm was very hard, and honestly, very interesting. But slow. I wrote PCB routing software in those early days. Asm let me get the job done with those early computer systems in satisfactory execution time.

Then, I wrote c in an editor and then ran make, letting the compiler write the asm, though still doing the debugging in great detail. That went on until IDEs came around.

Then, I began to write all manner of custom routines in c, and there was very little debugging to do, comparatively speaking, because you could trace everything that was going on so incredibly easily. That made for much faster and more efficient and reliable production of my custom code.

But most of that stopped too, when various pre-supplied and pre-debugged classes became available that obviated the need to first, write everything that was required, and second, to test everything except the high-ish level use of those objects. What I was actually writing got less and less complex and custom, and more and more was actually getting done.

Then came the day that I learned how to write evolutionary software and actually got to watch software learn to solve a problem that I had not explicitly described to it. I turned that into a game (and I turned the reasonably profitable result of that into my first exotic car purchase.)

We're now actually decades beyond that, and I write really cool stuff in very, very few lines. I no longer think of my job as all that hard at all, though I write things far more complex these days on much more capable hardware. I can take a machine learning library, stroke it a bit, and hand back a system that can solve problems for which I couldn't even begin to imagine a worthy algorithmic solution.

Back in the asm days, if you'd asked me to do the things I do easily today, I'd have just laughed at you. Tomorrow, I will likely be laughing again at the things I consider hard today. Because that's been the unbroken path things have followed.

There's an obvious progression of what non-human systems can accomplish described here, as progress stacks one capability upon the next, rinses, and repeats. I think if you assume that this process has reached its apex, or that humans will always be at the sharp end of the process, I'm pretty confident that you're indulging in some seriously uncalled-for optimism.

It's probably best to be awake now, before your job goes away. Odds are excellent that it will be rather sudden, too.

Slashdot Top Deals

Quark! Quark! Beware the quantum duck!

Working...