Woohoo, double the amount of shitty code!

Your presumption assumes that ALL tasks will ALWAYS be handled by robots. I don't see that realistically happening.

I don't see anything in the discussion that:
1) implies a complete elimination of the workforce (meaning my contribution still fits), and
2) implies that the GP's argument (someone must be willing to maintain the robots) is an invalid concern. It is relevant and it can be handled by a funded job.

Why do you insist on thinking that all jobs will be handled by robots? Certainly there will be instances where robots are not always cheaper.

One more comment that I should have included in the initial response: The robot does nothing for free. There is a cost there (a point originally established by the GP).

Yes I know what we're discussing. You seem to presume the solution I provide is one I subscribe to, which is wrong. I simple provided a potential solution.

To respond to the important part of your question, who said everyone can afford the robots? I'm sure there are plenty of situations where someone would decide that the amount of rubbish needing shoveling is not worth the cost of the robot, thus enabling an opportunity for work.

The easy solution to that is to keep money around via a standard income. Anyone who wants to bring home more than the standard income is welcome to take a job doing something, such as shoveling rubbish.

Yes, someone will take that job. There will always be people who want more, and they will take the means necessary to obtain it. If they need more money to buy something and the rubbish clearing job provides that money, they will do it. Not many will rush to that job but someone will do it. And if there's no standard time requirement to do it, they'll do it as fast as possible too.

I have not, but I wouldn't mind getting behind the wheel of one.

Doubtful. There's nothing sexy about a laptop, whereas Apple and Google (via Samsung and others) have made tablets the go-to computing device of the moment. Win8 is barely moving the needle on this decision; it is all being decided by form factor.

As someone who acts similarly (clean desktop except for temporary storage of files I need for current project reasons), I'd wager we are the minority. If the general user wanted a clean desktop they would manage it, but I imagine most care more about convenience than aesthetics. If convenience means a cluttered desktop, I just do not see how that defends the idea that the start menu is seen as a good solution.

So you acknowledge that visibility trumps being lost in the sea of shit that is the alphabetical folder structure of the start menu? That doesn't strike me as a sign that the start menu working well.

Based on the number of people I see with an entire desktop full of shortcuts and files, I refuse to believe that most people feel the start menu works well. It sucks as a solution and most people seemingly avoid it (to the point that most program installers offer to put a shortcut on your desktop, which is an obvious sign that everyone acknowledges the start menu is a pit of doom).

There's a pretty significant difference between, "locate & pack," and, "move package from point A to B."

This might be the wisest statement that I've ever read on Slashdot.

He was correct using Bug. I used Bus to imply that you need a bigger vehicle because more folks are involved with the administrative crap.