Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Not necessarily. (Score 1) 103

If fewer people are being paid to do the same job, technology has taken over jobs.

Not if more companies can offer that job because it has become more efficient to perform it. There way be an increase in absolute positions to fill exactly because you can do that job with fewer people (people being more expensive than the automation).

Comment Far from it (Score 2) 103

I'm a robot, so I'm pretty sure I'm safe.

What will happen when humans have no jobs? They will watch TV 24x7, right?

And what will they watch?

Well as history shows us, the most popular pastime is witnessing battles. With robots having recently taken away all the jobs, just who will humans want to se battling?

That's right, robots.

So Robot, you will enter the arena for our amusement , then have parts stripped from your shiny oiled hide by some variant of a hyper-advanced spinner bot. Wires crackling as the last sounds your failing audio receptors discern over even the rending sounds of your body being the cheering of human crowds at your imminent disassembly.

That Mr R. Obot is your retirement plan.

Comment Not exactly take, but augment (Score 2) 103

Yes technology will get rid of a lot of jobs.

But it has been doing that for a long, time time. Some jobs go away. But made possible are new jobs that would not be possible without the forward march of technology... there will always be work for people who seek to do something in life.

In a lot of cases technology may not even completely take over jobs, but allow a person to be much more effective, or for fewer people to do the same job as had been done before.

Comment Re:Call me crazy... (Score 1) 54

Well, they're both solutions. But they run afoul of questions. Which users benefit most from each solution? And if someone benefits most from the massive battery with conservative display and processor specs, can you sell it to him?

I'll tell you right here that I'd much prefer LG's approach, but I'm an engineer. I think about my requirements differently than most people.

Comment US Life Expectancy is 91.9 years (Score 3, Insightful) 93

If you're a woman in the top 1% by income. If you're a man in the top 1% it's 88.8 years.

If you're middle class you live about 78.3 years if you're a man, which is big step up from 1980, probably because of smoking. If you're a woman you live 79.7 years, a decline of a few months since 1980.

Now if you're a poor your life expectancy has declined since 1980, to 76.1 for men and 78.3 for women.

So here's the picture: if you're rich, medical advances since 1980 have increased your expected lifespan by about seven years. But those advances haven't had any effect on middle class lifespans. If you're poor you apparently are having difficulty paying for medical care at all, which is not surprising because health care costs have consistently outpaced inflation since the mid-70s. If you're a working poor American health care inflation meant you basically screwed by the 2000s: you were too rich for Medicaid, to poor to avoid medical care.

One more thing: US has a GINI coefficient (measure of income disparity) of 45. That's the highest in the industrialized world, and much higher than it's low point of 34 in 1969. Basically all of the income growth sicne 1990 have gone to the top quintile, in fact the lion's share to the top 5%. People at the 80th percentile by income and below have seen basically zero income growth when adjusted for inflation. And since health care inflation rises faster than inflation, it means 80% of the the US has seen a cut in its disposable income.

Comment Re:So, America might have a lower life expectancy. (Score 1) 93

Why single out one cause, when there's obviously many.

Take food. I live near a supermarket that is probably three times the size of the one my parents went to, but the produce section is smaller, the meat and dairy sections about the same size. The surplus acreage is taken up with cheap, calorie dense, no-preparation convenience food.

Or the fact that Amercians spend more time in cars than they used to, on average over 290 hours a year.

Here's another interesting fact: research shows that the portion size you choose is positively correlated to the size of the package you serve yourself from; this doesn't happen consciously, it's just that a cup of cereal from a 9 ounce box appears like a lot more than a cup of cereal from a 21 oz box.

The huge sizes are driven in part by an attempt to cut down on trips to the grocery store. American home kitchens are the largest in the world, and most of that is needed for storage because we don't do very much food preparation.

So if there's a single root cause it's the pursuit (sometimes failed) of efficiency; we have the wealth to try to reduce labor and time spent doing things, but our bodies are designed to spend time doing things.

Comment Re:The solution is simple. (Score 1) 294

The problem may be the while Garcina Cambogia causes 30% more weight to be lost, 30% more of zero is still zero.

If that's what happens anyway it's somewhat problematic to use the word causes -- unless it's a different 30% in each case that would have happened otherwise. It's a bit like Woody Allen's the Great Roe: "A mythological beast with the head of a lion and the body of a lion, though not the same lion."

Comment So when is the passenger a passenger? (Score 1) 213

Are we talking about fully autonomous vehicles where the passenger has virtually no control over the car's choices? Maybe there is a stop button or similar for emergencies but little else?

Or are we talking about a semi-autonomous vehicle where the driver is expected to be alert, unimpaired, overseeing the vehicle's progress and capable of intervening for any reason?

Because for the latter it seems like there will be plenty of blame to spread around if the car does something stupid that the human overseer could have prevented had they been fulfilling their job. And if they weren't doing their job was that because they were drunk off their ass, playing on their phone or otherwise doing something that means they share blame for an accident?

Comment Why kill yourself? (Score 1) 75

There are a number of people who think if you are below 60 now you may well live forever at this point.

That may be a bit extreme but I don't think living to 200 is unlikely if you are anywhere below 50 and keep yourself healthy...

So if you are going to miss this in 200 years it pretty much means you did yourself in. Don't do that.

Slashdot Top Deals

Mr. Cole's Axiom: The sum of the intelligence on the planet is a constant; the population is growing.

Working...