Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re: Why is this guy still talking (Score 1) 440

I usually do not like repetitive work (though sometimes I want to do it, say, taking a caddy out of a server, removing the plastic, installing a hard drive, putting caddy back and doing that 30 times). However, if bolting panel A to panel B was my job, I would do it and would not like it if somebody decided to automate it (because it would mean I no longer get paid). If I myself could automate it (and still get paid as if I have done that myself) then it would be great. In short - I am lazy and do not like repetitive work, but I like getting paid and food.

Comment Re:That's me five years ago, and bad for everyone (Score 1) 440

I dislike spending money, so if I can do something myself (and am not too lazy) I do it. If I buy, say, a cellphone, I will use it until it irreparably fails (I used a Nokia N93 for probably 8-10 years (the phone pretty much disintegrated), then a Nokia E90 for maybe 4 (microphone failed and nobody can get me a new one), now I am looking for a "new to me" E90 because I love the form factor and have a parts phone), with the exception of PC hardware (here I buy a new video card maybe every 4 years). My goal is to spend less than half of what I earn. I sometimes manage to reach it. As you might have guessed, I have not borrowed money ever, either as a bank loan or credit card.

Growing your own food (if you live where you can do that) may be useful, well, at least you know what you used in growing it and it may have a better taste (even if the various insecticides etc used industrially may not be bad for health). My father brews his own beer and he (and my friends who tasted it) say that the taste is much better than what is available in the store. I do not like beer so I wouldn't know.

Comment Re:Why is this guy still talking (Score 1) 440

Some people certainly were worse off when automatic looms were invented. However, those people could either work with the automatic looms at the factory (for lower pay of course) or work at some other factory doing some other simple job (maybe instead of weaving they now work at a spinning factory).
While the early factories obsoleted some jobs, they required new simple jobs, for example, somebody had to shovel coal into the furnace so the boiler can make steam for the factory.

If automation obsoletes most of the simple jobs (that is, jobs that do not require university/college education or many years of experience to do well) then there will be a problem. Most hand weavers could work with a power loom in a factory, or shovel coal. I am not so sure that most truck drivers can program, build web pages or design the new self-driving trucks.

Comment Re:The studies show programmers hire daycare (Score 1) 440

However, there is about 20% unemployed people in the US (well, at least according to your new President). I do not know how true is that, but if it is true, then the number is too high in my opinion. There were a lot of unemployed people in my country too, but recently they moved to countries like the UK to work picking tomatoes etc.

I may be soviet in my views, I try to do as much as possible myself. The only reason I do not change the oil in my car is that I do not have a garage with a pit or a lift (and I do not particularly want to lift the car on a jack and then crawl under it. I do, however, fix my own electronics as much as possible and fix my car as much as possible (for example, changing the rubber parts in a carburetor, replacing the radiator, headlight reflectors), I cannot weld or do other major work on the body (so, I leave patching the rust holes to specialists), and I paid for installing AC in my car (because it requires special skills/tools, pit/lift and a lot of time).

I personally consider hiring someone to do some job usually as somewhat of a failure of myself - either I am incompetent to do it myself or too lazy.

I prefer working with small companies and individuals over large companies. If I pay the mechanic to patch a rust hole in my car, most of the money goes to feed his family. If I bought a new car, most of that money would end up in the back accounts of stock holders, managers, but not the people who actually did the work.

I work as a sysadmin as my day job btw.

Comment Re:Too much to express here, but (Score 1) 440

How will it work if you have 90% unemployment? Simple, it won't be that way for long. You will have massive unrest, and all of the horrors that would entail.

Or you will have high taxes and welfare for all those 90% (if give people bread and entertainment they are less likely to overthrow you). Which means that the investors and company owners will be paying the other people for watching TV all day instead of paying them to do useful work.

Comment Re:He's right. (and has been for hundreds of years (Score 1) 440

Here's the thing: anybody who was in a physical condition that was good enough to work in agriculture, could switch to working at a factory, even weaker people could do it. As factories/mines got more efficient, the same people still worked there but were able to produce more for the factory owner.

However, not everybody working in a factory can switch to R&D, inventions, web page design, programming, engineering etc. You need to be more educated for any of these jobs than you do to work with a power loom. The problem is that not everybody can be educated (let's face it, some people are better with, say, math than others) and even if they were able to learn as well as anyone else, education is expensive in some countries, but they cannot pay for it because they don't have money because they don't have a job anymore and when they had a job, the pay was barely enough to survive.

Comment Re:Why is this guy still talking (Score 2) 440

Now imagine two workers, Abby the Apple Pie Maker, and Betty the Basket Maker. Before the robots came along, Abby made a pie everyday, and Betty made a basket everyday, and then they traded a pie for a basket.

What if both Abby and Betty sold their products to other people and then bought food, paid their bills with the money and only sometimes exchanged their products with each other? Now that both their products are worth 10% of the original price, both of them will starve and be kicked out of their flats for not paying the bills.

Comment Re: Why is this guy still talking (Score 2, Insightful) 440

There is a difference. You wrote a script to save yourself from doing a tedious task (I also do the same). Good. You can spend the time saved by doing something else (to get more money from another client) or watching youtube (the client probably expected you to take all day to do it, so you might as well say you did).

OTOH, imagine that copying the configuration to all devices was your primary job - someone else creates a template and you now have to apply it to all devices. Some time later, the admin who creates the templates finally figured out how to write a script to apply them automatically to all devices. Now you are no longer needed in the company.

Comment Re:Why is this guy still talking (Score 2) 440

The problem is that wealth creation is becoming more concentrated.

Let's say that I work for you and earn 1000EUR/month, while you (the boss) earn 5000EUR/month. You then decide to replace me with a robot (or a lower paid worker, maybe an immigrant), now I get zero, but since you save some money you now earn 10000EUR/month. It may be good for you, but I still will not like it. If the government asks me (as part of a referendum or an election) if I want to prevent you from using your current solution, I will vote for it. If it passes, you will have to take me back (or not earn any money at all) and go back to earning 5000 while paying me 1000. Our combined income (or GDP) is lower, but since I earn more, I like this situation much better than you earning more and me earning nothing.

Comment Re:So (Score 2) 1424

If we agree that the states are different (somewhat different laws etc), then, to me, it seems logical to me that the people living in different stats have different views, opinions etc that they are more likely to have in common with other people living in the same state than people living in other states.

To me, it also seems logical that the people who chose to not vote are more likely to share the views of the people who voted in the same state (to me, not voting means "I don't care" and I would assume the default views for your area). Children cannot vote and I would assume that their parents know what's best for them.

In my opinion, the different views of the states should be represented (otherwise just scrap the "state" division and have one big government for everyone). This is done with EC in that all states get at least 3 votes irrespective of their population. So, smaller states get more votes than they would if the votes were based just on population so that they are not overshadowed by bigger states.

Popular vote really depends on turnout and I assume that convincing more people to come and vote for you is easier in a state where a lot of people likes you (for example, California for Clinton) than it is to convince the people of some other state to vote for you.

This means, that with strict popular vote, all, say, Clinton, has to do is to convince a lot of people in California to come and vote (to win California vote by a bigger percentage) to offset the votes of entire smaller states. As it is right now, whether 51% or 80% of Californians voted for Clinton, she still gets the same amount of EC votes.

Also, with popular vote, the opinion of those who chose to not vote is assumed to be with the majority of the entire country, not just their state, which is not completely correct, given that people in different states have different majority opinions/problems.

In short, popular vote would require convincing people in areas that like you to go and vote more, while with EC you need to convince people in more areas to vote for you.

Take the EU for example - the EU does not have an elected President and the elected positions are divided by country (each member country gets some number of seats). However, if there was an elected President, then the elections would have to be done with something similar to EC, otherwise the opinion of Berlin (one city) would matter more than the opinion of one or two Baltic countries (where people and conditions are really different).

Comment Re:Electoral college does reflect the popular vote (Score 1) 1424

And yet, both Carolinas voted for Trump.

How about a true popular vote? Instead of selecting two candidates, make them all compete in a two round election - first round would have all candidates and the second round would have two candidates who got the most votes in the first round (if a candidate got 60% of votes in the first round, then he wins and there is no second round).

Comment Re:Yes, but it doesn't matter (Score 1) 1424

You know, maybe this happens because the Republicans are better at optimizing the results in the current system?

I think the campaigning would be different if the elections were decided by a popular vote instead of electoral college. But as it is right now, you only have to win by a small amount to get all votes of a state, meaning that if you think you have achieved that, you can stop campaigning there and save some money. Under a different system, you would campaign more to get as many votes in any state as possible, but right now it doesn't matter.

Slashdot Top Deals

You can tune a piano, but you can't tuna fish. You can tune a filesystem, but you can't tuna fish. -- from the tunefs(8) man page

Working...