Good summation of how the consoles had to learn the hard way about hardware going obsolete.

This isnt just the US economy. The Digital World will make many jobs obsolete everywhere. In a few decades there will be not enough manual work left to make a living for everyone.

Which means ... there will not be enough spending capacity left to generate enough revenue for a lot of industries. When no one has work, no one has the money to buy stupid crap they really dont need, so entire industries will go bancrupt which means more jobless people which means even less disposable income.

In Davos, on the World Economic Forum, for the first time there was a decent and serious discussion about possible solutions for this developement. From heavily investing in education for future generations to different models of basic income.

"They" know that something has to be done. There has to be some form of wealth distribution or everything will go up in flames.

@Bernie:
As a European Bernie isnt THAT much a leftie. He wont win the nomination, but the more he gives Hillary a hard time, the more influence he will have on her future social and economic policies. May be he'll even end up in her government.

@Lawdeedaw

I think that's a bit of a flawed argument and hardly what's wrong with the US economy. It would be silly to halt the automation* of driving. Not only is it likely to lead to safer driving but reducing the costs of shipping everything will in effect lower the costs of virtually all goods and improve living standards. Government may have a role to retrain workers or to provide unemployment support but it's not there to prop up industries that are obsolete. No one wants to go back to the days of typists and secretaries and for good reason.

I would rather blame the entrenched firms with their lobbyists protecting their turf through the corrupt political contribution system. If you look at Google Fiber for example: Verizon, Comcast and the like have been mounting various political and legal challenges to keep them from growing and to protect their margins. Free market economies work because new market entrants erode profits over time through innovation. Instead you have politically maintained trusts.

They won't have jobs because the automization of this country will leave them jobless. When Google makes truck drivers, taxi drivers, uber drivers obsolete, that's a few million jobs dead and gone forever. When every grocery store, fast food place, gas station and so forth are automated 100%, that's millions more. The ripple effect of 10 million + jobs gone in a few decades will cost millions more, the type that is higher paying.

So in other words @bobnight33 the economy is crashing under the free market 100%, so what is your solution?

The electoral college is an unnecessary relic. At the time you would actually need a person from each state to physically go down to DC and cast a vote. With today's technology this has become clearly obsolete.

Aw, you wait with bells on. You are quiet cute little Newt, but you forget that I said I would not rant if abuse did occur...now you did have abuse, so I can't rave...so guess by your own statements go ahead and keep waiting bud, because I was A-Pretty God damn clear, and B-you made yourself obsolete. Ha, irony.

This could be obsolete now, since Harper supposedly lost. Not that I object to shining some sunlight on the actions of bigots, obsolete or not.

MADD is going to be obsolete.

@newtboy

I don't think I'm much in danger of contradiction in suggesting that you yourself have yet to crack a book of feminist theory or engage with a feminist activist making no more extravagant sex/gender claims that the one you quote from that unimpeachable source, dictionary.com (and when did dictionaries move from being an aid to understanding obscure words to the ultimate arbiters of political thought?).

There is no separating the movement from the ideology; this is an ancient truism. Without the movement, the idea dies. Without the idea, the movement doesn't exist. My unfollowable second paragraph comprises only examples of actual, nasty feminist doctrine which I have encountered in the real world, and could probably even document with a few google searches. I can hardly be blamed that this group is so dissolute, so indiscriminately inclusive of maniacs and criminal fanatics that no single representative feminist can be found, no central text can answer for the whole.

But for the sake of increasingly and inexplicably divisive argument, let's attempt to isolate just that 'small-f' feminism in the definition you give: "feminism: noun: the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men", which I will unconditionally repudiate and abjure, for the following reasons.

i) Let's be boring and start with the name. A name that has rightly attracted much criticism, and which Virginia Woolf - not a feminist, merely a devastatingly intelligent and talented woman - called "a vicious and corrupt word that has done much harm in its day and is now obsolete".* Anyone can see the defect here, an implicitly sexist term that apparently calls for the advancement of one sex at the expense of - whom? Well, whom do you think? A special politics for women only and exclusionary of those other incidental members of the human species, once allies and comrades and now relegated to the other side of what has become a literally unending antagonism.

You may say, "it's only a name", but how little else your dictionary leaves me to examine. No, were there no other social or intellectual harm in feminism, I would reject it on the ground of its name alone.

ii, sailor) Would that there were a known equivalent for the term 'racialism' that could relate to the cultural fiction of gender. The demand for women's rights necessarily requires that such a category 'women' exists, and is in need of special protection. Well what virtue is there in any woman that exists in no man? What mannish fault that finds no womanly echo? Then how is this distinction maintained except through supernatural thinking?

There are no women; and if there are no women, then there is nothing for feminism to accomplish. You may sign me up at any time for the doctrine of 'anti-sexism' or of 'individualism', but I will spit on anyone who advocates for 'women's rights'.

iii) This has been touched on before, and praise satan for that time saving mercy, but I reject the implicit assumption that there is a natural societal opposition to the principle of sex equality and that those who fail to declare for this, again, historically very recent dogma fall by default into that opposing force.



*The quote is worth taking in its fuller context, written in a time when the word 'feminist' was a slur on those heroes whose suffering and idealism has been so ghoulishly plundered for the tawdry use of @bareboards2 and her cohort:

"What more fitting than to destroy an old word, a vicious and corrupt word that has done much harm in its day and is now obsolete? The word ‘feminist’ is the word indicated. That word, according to the dictionary, means ‘one who champions the rights of women’. Since the only right, the right to earn a living, has been won, the word no longer has a meaning. And a word without a meaning is a dead word, a corrupt word. Let us therefore celebrate this occasion by cremating the corpse. Let us write that word in large black letters on a sheet of foolscap; then solemnly apply a match to the paper. Look, how it burns! What a light dances over the world! Now let us bray the ashes in a mortar with a goose-feather pen, and declare in unison singing together that anyone who uses that word in future is a ring-the-bell-and-run-away-man, a mischief maker, a groper among old bones, the proof of whose defilement is written in a smudge of dirty water upon his face. The smoke has died down; the word is destroyed. Observe, Sir, what has happened as the result of our celebration. The word ‘feminist’ is destroyed; the air is cleared; and in that clearer air what do we see? Men and women working together for the same cause. The cloud has lifted from the past too. What were they working for in the nineteenth century — those queer dead women in their poke bonnets and shawls? The very same cause for which we are working now. ‘Our claim was no claim of women’s rights only;’— it is Josephine Butler who speaks —‘it was larger and deeper; it was a claim for the rights of all — all men and women — to the respect in their persons of the great principles of Justice and Equality and Liberty.’"

Correction, the Air Force Brass hates them. Why?

1. They work perfectly for the role they were designed for. Brass want a plane that will be obsolete after 15 years or so, so that they can score big with plane mfg's

2. The typical AFB idea of close combat is a few miles away by button. You shouldn't be close enough to see the carnage. Just a poof and turn around to land. Having such a brute force plane is distasteful to them.

3. The A10 is called to support infantry most of the time. The Air Force overall still has a chip on their shoulder when it comes to the Army and other 'ground' forces. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't go out of their way to piss on an infantryman if he was on fire.

Basically the A10 is similar to the Harrier, it works well, it's not flashy, and it takes a beating. Complete opposite of most Air Force planes. The F35 that they want to replace both with is a joke and is mindbogglingly more expensive. If you watch any video that has an A10 pilot in it, talking about the plane, they can't sing it's praises enough. Sadly they have no say in whether it gets replaced.

Absolutely. It's a mistake to make assumptions about what AI will be like. The doomsayers too often attribute human qualities to it. It's like speculating about alien intelligence. It will come in bits an pieces as we understand it more. My own guess is that, not weighed down by long obsolete genetic imperatives and human psychological pathologies, it will most likely be (in its higher form) an extraordinarily capable problem solver and prognosticator. It will lack the human flaws that typically motivate the killer AIs of science fiction. Of course, it will probably have it's own unique flaws. I do think it's wise to be wary of software that has developed beyond our capability to understand it (much as we don't understand the workings of our own consciousness).

Probably my primary concern about robotic weapons comes from a DARPA proposal I read about some time in the past. What they wanted was an autonomous, bird sized UAV. It would contain surveillance equipment and sensors, and be able to share the data it collects through a mesh network established with it's fellows and the commanders as well as receive orders. It would be intelligent enough to find a suitable strategic vantage point and hide itself. From there it would simply observe. With a large enough swarm of these, perhaps many thousands, you could send them into a city at night. They would each also potentially carry a small warhead allowing them to launch themselves at and destroy threats. Once these robots were entrenched, which might only take an hour or two, whoever controls them would effectively rule the city. Even if they were cut off from their command structure, they might still retain enough intelligence to recognize a particular individual, someone in a forbidden area, someone holding a weapon, or someone not brodcasting the right IFF signal, or any number of things. There might be no defense against such a thing (though there probably will be).

To me, that concept is terrifying. It's not huge hulking terminator-like war machines that could be the greatest threat, just flying, self-guiding, intelligent hand grenades. All someone would need is the capability to manufacture them. No raising an army, no speeches or threats, just a factory and a design. It's also not too far fetched to believe this capability might be available in just a matter of a few decades. They'll be easier to build than nuclear weapons, and oh so convenient and easy to deploy.

Um.... anyways, I dunno where I was going with that. Just lots of random pontificating, but because it's technology, it's silly to try to stop it with legislation. It will happen, as ChaosEngine rightly points out, the best course of action is to be on top of it and to understand it.

Hmmm. Well, I have a "low end" pc, and I've tried to play games on it, and was not impressed. Perhaps I should have done more investigation before I bought it, but I wasn't thinking 'game machine' when I did. Also, I have no controllers for it, and playing with the keyboard sucks ass! ;-)
Keep in mind, this setup on the video has over $4K in graphics cards alone, and is probably a $6-7K computer without the 3 TV's. With all that, it doesn't look better to me than last gen 3 screen games. (they should have chosen a different game IMO, I'm sure it does look way better when there's detail to display)

It's good that they're making them easier to set up, but it is still WAY more difficult than a console, which is plug and play. I still haven't gotten my PC to display properly on my TV without a cable across the room, and that's crappy.
I'm also disappointed that they tried to make the new consoles "media players" (crappy PCs). I wish they stuck with games and put it all into display features, but they didn't. I don't use the media features of my ps4 at all (except for Netflix, which my TV would do by itself if I set it up), they're a total waste.

Perhaps I'm stuck in a mid 90's mindset. That's the last time I built my own PC as a game rig. I had the full $250 thrustmaster setup, joystick and throttle with over 20 programmable buttons, and it was GREAT for descent and quake...but I recall being disappointed at how fast it was obsolete. Within 2 years I couldn't play newer games on it without stuttering....so I gave up on that. I can't afford to upgrade my memory and graphics card every 2 years, and motherboard and chip every 3.

I do recall a few games even on ps3 that could do the multiple display thing even at 1080i...I think motorstorm 1&2 (my favorite ps3 games) would do it, but you needed 3 ps3s to make it work. Today, you could probably do that for fairly cheap! What does a ps3 cost these days anyway? I must say, I didn't see anything that made 4K seem better. Motion blur looks the same at 1080 as 4K.

Actually, since the development of adaptive optics, ground based telescopes aren't obsolete at all. Even without adaptive optics they have their uses, and some interesting science is done with them.

Getting telescope time on a space based telescope (or large ground based telescope for that matter) is quite hard, which limits the things astronomers can do with them.

That makes sense since space is a vacuum that they would test it in a vacuum. For some reason, I was thinking it was a land based telescope. I guess those are pretty much obsolete at this point.

Thanks!

That is disconcerting. I understood they were not efficient, but to be that much worse than normal industry is almost criminal, no matter the reason.

Designing for the future was also my point. Since it seems we have already gotten to a point where lost lives and aircraft are intolerable, we should design cheaper, better performing drones to remove those issues, not continue with older insanely expensive models already obsolete for the most part before deployment...IMO.
I do understand the 'farming out' of contract work, what I was talking about is intentionally spreading the work to all states in order to gain congressional backing, not using the best/cheapest manufacturer. I have no solution, just griping. ;-)
I think we should go (back?) to allowing private companies to produce prototypes to compare that meet requested/required criteria instead of a design competition. Then at least the only issues would be manufacturing specs and costs of mass production, not making it work at all decades and billions (trillions?) down the road....but I'm just a layman looking from the outside.