Future of FARTS and bull****, yeah right

[Ominous Gamer]

Roomba already vacuums and mops floors.

They also have models that clean pools and drains, as well as models that do surveillance.

[Nessus]

Now if only they'd make one that shoots thieves and trespassers in the back, too

[EyeKhan]

Now if only they'd make one that shoots thieves and trespassers in the back, too

You're far too trusting.

[Illusions]

Not happening anywhere near my lifetime. New technology destroys jobs *and* creates new ones. Robots are also expensive as hell. Maybe in 300 years a robot can replace a housekeeper in cleaning drains, toilets, vacuuming and cleaning the windows but more then likely it would still be a cheaper to higher a human.

I don't see how this applies to my points at all. Your lifetime is short compared to forever, which was the length by which I was comparing the survivability of capitalism as a working economic model. Secondly, just because technology destroys jobs and creates new ones does not mean that those newly created jobs are going to be done by humans. There are plenty of new jobs that end up being done by machines. In addition technology does not always remain expensive. I'm working on a computer today that is multiple times more powerful and functional than one I was using a decade ago, and it cost less as well. Besides that, employing someone to retirement age, and paying them a living wage, costs well over a million dollars. You can't also expect everyone to be a housekeeper. So again, where is your rebuttal?

Now if only they'd make one that shoots thieves and trespassers in the back, too

Auotmated sentries, while available for non-civilian purchase, are not yet available and affordable enough for your average homeowner. You could potentially jerry-rig your own with the right equipment, however in the US the use of said device would likely be as legal as using booby traps...

[Nessus]

Auotmated sentries, while available for non-civilian purchase, are not yet available and affordable enough for your average homeowner. You could potentially jerry-rig your own with the right equipment, however in the US the use of said device would likely be as legal as using booby traps...

In the 60s or 70s, a Finnish court ruled that it was legal to booby-trap your own house with bear traps even if it resulted in the death of a burglar; a summer cabin owner had his cabin robbed every winter and he decided to set a bear trap under the window where the perp had gotten into each time. Unfortunately, the perp had come in head-first, and killed himself inadvertently.

[Catgrrl]

Interesting. Here in the states you'd be liable if a burglar gets hurt or killed from such a trap.

[EyeKhan]

In the 60s or 70s, a Finnish court ruled that it was legal to booby-trap your own house with bear traps even if it resulted in the death of a burglar; a summer cabin owner had his cabin robbed every winter and he decided to set a bear trap under the window where the perp had gotten into each time. Unfortunately, the perp had come in head-first, and killed himself inadvertently.

Lewk would be proud.

[Lewkowski]

I don't see how this applies to my points at all. Your lifetime is short compared to forever, which was the length by which I was comparing the survivability of capitalism as a working economic model.

Past my lifetime is pure conjecture. We do not know what path advanced technology will take.

Secondly, just because technology destroys jobs and creates new ones does not mean that those newly created jobs are going to be done by humans.

Its only always worked out that way...

Besides that, employing someone to retirement age, and paying them a living wage, costs well over a million dollars. You can't also expect everyone to be a housekeeper. So again, where is your rebuttal?

My rebuttal was an example. I'm not sure what your point of this far off future where robots are as capable as humans? I suppose its an interesting thought experiment but its relevance to life today is nil.

[Illusions]

Past my lifetime is pure conjecture. We do not know what path advanced technology will take.

We decide what we would like it to though.

Its only always worked out that way...

So here are a few questions in lieu of that. Are the new jobs created always equal to or greater than the number of jobs destroyed? Are the newly created jobs capable of being done by the people who've lost their jobs due to this technological change? Why is it unlikely that the newly created jobs could not be done by a machine? If someone were to invent a revolutionary form of automatic robotic factory would its parts not be built by machines in much the same way a lot of our more advanced technology is already being made?

My rebuttal was an example. I'm not sure what your point of this far off future where robots are as capable as humans? I suppose its an interesting thought experiment but its relevance to life today is nil.

The relevance is that with modern technology we can eliminate job fields, whose workers have been in for decades, and your opinion as well as Loki's is one that it should be easy for these people to just up and change what they've been doing for decades, rapidly adopt some new skill or training, and then get a new job, lest you label them a drain on society. The broader point is that your own logic in how to deal with and treat these people, is unsustainable into the far future.

[Lewkowski]

The broader point is that your own logic in how to deal with and treat these people, is unsustainable into the far future.

Something for future generations to figure out. Seriously Illusions look at from the point of view of people 200 years ago. Do you think they would have any inkling of the concept of Fast Food? Or the iPad? Or jobs dedicated to programming computers? Or what about nuclear weapons? Did they have any idea of what the world would be like 200 years from their age? And look back further 200 years before that. Could they imagine vessels made of metal instead of wood?

Currently right now in this age job fields that are eliminated do not mean a total net increase in global unemployment. Thats just a fact, the unemployment is temporary and driven by economic conditions not by there not being any jobs needed. What new technological invention in the last 3 years doubled the unemployment rate in America?

Are the new jobs created always equal to or greater than the number of jobs destroyed?

Your looking at it in the wrong way. Labor is not a fixed item, as different jobs are no longer needed society has the ability to grow alternative industries. Your thinking reminds me of the fallacy of people who think that old folks need to retire to "make room" for younger generations.

Are the newly created jobs capable of being done by the people who've lost their jobs due to this technological change?

That depends on the person. They may need to be trained in whatever new field they would like to pursue.

[Illusions]

Something for future generations to figure out. Seriously Illusions look at from the point of view of people 200 years ago.

There is only one condition in which we can imagine managers not needing subordinates, and masters not needing slaves. This condition would be that each instrument could do its own work, at the word of command or by intelligent anticipation, like the statues of Daedalus or the tripods made by Hephaestus, of which Homer relates that 'Of their own motion they entered the conclave of Gods on Olympus' as if a shuttle should weave of itself, and a plectrum should do its own harp playing.

A little bit more than 200 years ago but you get the idea.

Do you think they would have any inkling of the concept of Fast Food? Or the iPad? Or jobs dedicated to programming computers? Or what about nuclear weapons? Did they have any idea of what the world would be like 200 years from their age? And look back further 200 years before that. Could they imagine vessels made of metal instead of wood?

Well on the one hand, I'm fairly certain that they had vendors selling precooked and prepared foods over at least 200 years ago. Also the idea that we would have jobs dedicated to programming computers back in the 1800's isn't absurd as Charles Babbage was working on designs for his difference engine and other mechanical computing technologies, and Ada Lovelace wrote what is considered the first computer program. I'm also fairly certain that they could have imagined a vessels made of metal instead of wood, they were just not practical, technologically capable or affordable to make at the time. On the other hand, you're probably right about the iPad and nuclear weapons. This isn't really a strong argument for proving that capitalism is a sustainable economic system, or that we won't have machines capable of doing nearly all labor that humans are able to do.

Currently right now in this age job fields that are eliminated do not mean a total net increase in global unemployment. Thats just a fact, the unemployment is temporary and driven by economic conditions not by there not being any jobs needed. What new technological invention in the last 3 years doubled the unemployment rate in America?

We haven't really had any new major technological invention in the last 3 years thats eliminated job fields.

Your looking at it in the wrong way. Labor is not a fixed item, as different jobs are no longer needed society has the ability to grow alternative industries. Your thinking reminds me of the fallacy of people who think that old folks need to retire to "make room" for younger generations.

I think the problem is is that you're treating people and jobs as numbers, and because 1 person could fill 1 factory job, that when that 1 factory job is eliminated, and new jobs open up because of it in a completely unrelated field, that that now 1 unemployed person should be able to transfer to those new jobs so long as those new jobs total 1 or greater.

That depends on the person. They may need to be trained in whatever new field they would like to pursue.

I'm sure that it will be profitable to spend money and time to train this person, or that this person will be able to afford the time and money to train themselves now that they are out of work. Its like you choose to ignore how the hiring process works, and what candidates would be selected, or even if certain people would be capable of handling another job after decades of working the one that got eliminated, either because it makes your position look bad when approached realistically instead of idealistically, or you really believe that they're getting what they deserve and don't want to come across as lacking empathy.



*Note: Aristotle and the knowledge of the rest of the ancients

[Ominous Gamer]

It always gets worse before its better. This popped up a few days ago, but I wanted to see what the library's response nationwide was before I reposted it.

One of North America's largest publishers has decided that digital items should come with an expiration date. The same publisher is also our largest digital books provider. They now only offer books that expire after 26 checkouts. They don't count how long the checkouts are for, or how much the book is "read." Its 26 checkouts and the library is forced to purchase a new book.

Its gonna cut our book ordering in a pretty deep way. This is no way reflects the IRL shelf life of our physically circulating collection.

[agamemnus]

It's

Pass law to prohibit such practices, or move to another country!

[Aimless]

People make irresponsible purchases because they're in the manic or hypomanic phase of the bipolar disorder they developed due to materna consumption of bottled tap-water, alternatively because they HOPE (desperately) that they will be happier, but for some reason they remain unhappy and unfulfilled so they continue buying things.

Honestly, what kind of a businessman wants his products to be completely fulfilling for any period of time? They want people to be unhappy enough but still hopeful enough to buy the next product and all its accessories, and they have diligently worked to shape a society that supports such behaviour.

[Khendraja'aro]

In the 60s or 70s, a Finnish court ruled that it was legal to booby-trap your own house with bear traps even if it resulted in the death of a burglar; a summer cabin owner had his cabin robbed every winter and he decided to set a bear trap under the window where the perp had gotten into each time. Unfortunately, the perp had come in head-first, and killed himself inadvertently.

South Africa has the same laws regarding securing your car due to the rampant car theft. You can do anything to secure your car, up to and including:
a) electrifying the exterior
b) flamethrowers which douse the doors
c) claymore mines under the driver seat

[Aimless]

Hmmm. Is it illegal to unlock those intel processors for free? Or unlock those Windows discs etc?

[Ominous Gamer]

Illegal to sell or share the information in a direct form, but if you can manage it yourself, you're golden. Our legal department claims we're in clear if we show patrons websites and walkthroughs on how to strip DRM if they ask.