Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday January 23 2018, @02:31PM   Printer-friendly
from the building-a-more-robotic-tomorrow dept.

Hadrian is not the first large-scale industrial robot that can complete a whole build from start to finish. It's not even the first outdoor construction robot.

What's remarkable is it's both. As Mike told me, "Anything you can build inside a factory ... we're getting really, really good at. Trouble is, nothing's happening outdoors."

That's because environmental factors like wind and temperature variations can make life difficult for robots outdoors.

Most robots can't adjust to small, quick changes in wind or temperature fast enough to keep up.

That's fine if little wobbles won't make a big difference. But when you're working on something as large-scale as building a house and a light breeze could lead to bricks being laid way out of position, it can get very dangerous.

So up till now, any robot building on such large scales had to be indoors in minutely controlled environments.

Hadrian has overcome this problem using the precision technology Dynamic Stabilisation Technology (DST). DST was developed in Perth by Mike's cousin, Mark Pivac, back in the early 2000s. The computer program measures environmental factors an astounding 2000 times per second, then accounts for them in real time.

If robots replace the construction workers, who then will wolf whistle?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 24 2018, @04:26AM (77 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @04:26AM (#626963)

    That's the usual state of affairs before the Industrial Age

    And you think that Industrial Age 1.0 settled down to the optimal state of affairs with those who control the wealth telling those who have none what to do, how to do it, and how much liberty they are allowed?

    claim that more employment is a bad thing

    Make-work, employing people for the sake of having them employed, is a very bad thing. Government, large corporations, regulatory compliance efforts - all have big merits, and also have significant waste in the form of many (not all) people "reporting to work" to do nothing of real value.

    There's a deep conservative fear of "idle hands" and "the Devil's workshop" which seems part of this driver to try to make sure that people have to be busy doing something, otherwise they'll be making trouble. A) Trouble for who? B) If there are so many troublemaking unemployed, let's ramp up employment in the police and community services fields until the troublemakers are reduced to an acceptable level.

    road-side trash is a low value problem.

    to you. As you say:

    Expression is existence.

    It's unsightly, but not as important as improving your life.

    Many of us are quite happy with the level of improvement of our own private lives, and would derive great satisfaction from the removal of unsightly and ecologically damaging trash from the common spaces of the world. I believe Pixar made a science fiction movie extrapolating the potential future outcome of a world that shares your unsightly trash is a low value problem [imdb.com] attitude.

    six month stretch

    Vacation doesn't count, you're not actually employed during that time, even if it's earned-paid vacation, which I doubt would ever happen for 6 months at a stretch in the US.

    Conditions like citizenship, criminality, or just deciding not to issue your checks.

    Absolutely, and you don't think that equally arbitrary and capricious "adjustments" to immigration rules, tax codes and pork allocations aren't happening in every session of Congress and Presidential dick wave? In a utopia, there are no problems with other countries because we're all equal and free to move about... not holding my breath for utopia, but it is worth striving for.

    every time has been exciting

    I'll take my excitement without the threat of foreclosure, or dilemmas between losing 6 months' pay with one choice, or 9 months' pay with the other.

    I don't think society should compensate you for them.

    At what point did you ever get the impression that I think I would be receiving UBI benefit without paying it back multiple times over in income tax?

    what jobs are you creating?

    That's your agenda, not mine.

    I just wish we didn't de-value that choice to such a point as making people do something else just to survive.

    We didn't. We made human time valuable.

    No, people who control the wealth have assigned relative values to various tasks, and they have decided by consensus that some worthwhile tasks are not worth compensation even at a level that can provide a livable existence. The primary assignment of value to a task today isn't how many people it benefits or how much it benefits them, the primary assignment of value is based on how much money the employer can derive from the employee doing the task. Sometimes that works out to a good result, other times it leads to greed fueled bubbles, from my perspective it looks like Ouroboros has already swallowed more than half of itself and the consequence to people without wealth is no longer a consideration.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:14AM (76 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:14AM (#627005) Journal

    And you think that Industrial Age 1.0 settled down to the optimal state of affairs with those who control the wealth telling those who have none what to do, how to do it, and how much liberty they are allowed?

    No, I don't think it "settled" that way. After all, I don't even agree that those who control wealth have that sort of power.

    Make-work, employing people for the sake of having them employed, is a very bad thing. Government, large corporations, regulatory compliance efforts - all have big merits, and also have significant waste in the form of many (not all) people "reporting to work" to do nothing of real value.

    Large corporations don't belong on that list. They pay people to work and unlike government and more government, they don't have a reason to just pay people. Waste is not make work.

    Further, just because things aren't absolutely perfect doesn't mean that it's a good idea to pay people to waste their time.

    There's a deep conservative fear of "idle hands" and "the Devil's workshop" which seems part of this driver to try to make sure that people have to be busy doing something, otherwise they'll be making trouble. A) Trouble for who? B) If there are so many troublemaking unemployed, let's ramp up employment in the police and community services fields until the troublemakers are reduced to an acceptable level.

    For me, an enormous part of the problem is simply that there's a lot of work left. We haven't brought everyone up to developed world status, we don't live as long as we would like, and I'm still looking for space colonization. I'm pretty sure, I could come up with a ton of other stuff that we would need or like, both on the large and small scales. So why should we tell everyone to go home, when there's so much left to do?

    It's unsightly, but not as important as improving your life.

    Many of us are quite happy with the level of improvement of our own private lives, and would derive great satisfaction from the removal of unsightly and ecologically damaging trash from the common spaces of the world. I believe Pixar made a science fiction movie extrapolating the potential future outcome of a world that shares your unsightly trash is a low value problem attitude.

    Proof by movie. Very professional.

    Vacation doesn't count, you're not actually employed during that time, even if it's earned-paid vacation, which I doubt would ever happen for 6 months at a stretch in the US.

    What an enormous moving of the goalposts there! Of course, it's vacation. Of course, I'm not paid. And nobody gave me a unicorn either, the cheapskates!

    You claimed it couldn't happen and I happened to be doing that very thing right now. Now, you're throwing ridiculous conditions on it. That was a silly argument and you should be ashamed for making it.

    At what point did you ever get the impression that I think I would be receiving UBI benefit without paying it back multiple times over in income tax?

    I think it's the incessant whining. Doesn't strike me as a thing that someone who is productive by choice would say.

    No, people who control the wealth have assigned relative values to various tasks, and they have decided by consensus that some worthwhile tasks are not worth compensation even at a level that can provide a livable existence. The primary assignment of value to a task today isn't how many people it benefits or how much it benefits them, the primary assignment of value is based on how much money the employer can derive from the employee doing the task. Sometimes that works out to a good result, other times it leads to greed fueled bubbles, from my perspective it looks like Ouroboros has already swallowed more than half of itself and the consequence to people without wealth is no longer a consideration.

    Which if you think about it, is far healthier an attitude than both the living wage crap or the make work busybodies. If work isn't worth paying what people are willing to work for, then it doesn't get done. I'm fine with that.

    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 24 2018, @01:54PM (7 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @01:54PM (#627125)

      After all, I don't even agree that those who control wealth have that sort of power.

      See, I think this is the basis of our fundamental difference. I do think that those who control the wealth have inappropriately disproportionate control of the earth, and people's lives thereon. I'm not of the position "one person one vote" for everything, but when wealth focuses on building wealth, concentrating >99% of the wealth into 99% of the human wealth, you couldn't buy and exploit all the natural resources even if you controlled all the human wealth in the world. We've passed the tipping point, and while our wise and serene leader of the free world doesn't feel the need to drill for oil off the coast of Mar-a-Lago, the next one might not be so level headed.

      Balance - sure there should be differences based on wealth, but this game of asymptotes with a huge number of people with wealth approaching zero, and a tiny number of people with wealth approaching infinity, needs to flatten out a bit, maybe even bulge the curve the other way.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:02PM (6 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:02PM (#627218) Journal

        I do think that those who control the wealth have inappropriately disproportionate control of the earth, and people's lives thereon.

        So what? Why should I care what you think?

        but when wealth focuses on building wealth, concentrating >99% of the wealth into 99% of the human wealth

        Trivially true. More than 99% of the wealth is concentrated in the wealthiest 99%. Check that box.

        But perhaps you meant the other way around? The poorest 99% can never have greater than 99% of the wealth, else they wouldn't be the poorest 99%. It's a genuine mathematical impossibility.

        And of course, there is this unwarranted assumption that the inequality matters.

        you couldn't buy and exploit all the natural resources even if you controlled all the human wealth in the world.

        Ok, so what? Not even seeing a reason to care here.

        We've passed the tipping point, and while our wise and serene leader of the free world doesn't feel the need to drill for oil off the coast of Mar-a-Lago, the next one might not be so level headed.

        While I can see the obvious nuisance (in the legal sense here, a nuisance can be a crippling problem on a large scale to neighbors) problems with drilling right off the coast of a hot tourist spot, the actual prohibition is for the entire Eastern coast not just the touristy spots. And should climate change prove to be a greater problem than our other problems, then that too would be a large negative to drilling. But OTOH, we do a lot with oil. It's foolish to dismiss oil drilling just because it's the current thoughtcrime.

        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:08PM (4 children)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:08PM (#627222)

          concentrating more than 99% of the wealth into 99% of the human wealth

          Sorry, my editor is taking the day off. Though I thought you'd recognize the old saw: greater than 99% of the wealth into less than 1% of the people.... I suspect the HTML interpreter made a mess of that.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:19PM (3 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:19PM (#627233) Journal

            greater than 99% of the wealth into less than 1% of the people...

            Not true. Let us keep in mind that these measures of wealth don't count earning potential as wealth. That's why the poorest people are in developed world countries and someone without a penny to their name owns more than the bottom 30% of the world's population.

            • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:04PM (2 children)

              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:04PM (#627259)

              Switching focus global vs domestic will certainly confuse the issues.

              --
              🌻🌻 [google.com]
              • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:27PM (1 child)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:27PM (#627270) Journal

                Switching focus global vs domestic will certainly confuse the issues.

                Point is that current measures of wealth lead to ignoring a huge source of wealth and treating people with high debt as if they were just as poor as someone who is too poor to borrow any money at all.

                • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 24 2018, @07:16PM

                  by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @07:16PM (#627302)

                  treating people with high debt as if they were just as poor as someone who is too poor to borrow any money at all.

                  Very good point. Nevertheless, regardless of what you think of government statistics, there is still the observable phenomenon in my part of the world: hundreds of thousands of people living in the city, working full-time and exhibiting relatively modest means, thousands more in apparent poverty, and then, in smaller numbers than the visible poor, but still in their thousands: empty mansions on the waterfront - part-time (often less than 5%) occupied by people who own many similarly extravagant houses spread around the world - and their houses don't even represent the bulk of their wealth. They're great for the local property tax base, but I think they are representative of a problem that needs addressing.

                  --
                  🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:38PM

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:38PM (#627243)

          unwarranted assumption that the inequality matters.

          Inequality of outcome is a good thing. Inequality of opportunity to the extent that it reduces the chances for equal outcome to less than one in millions? That's grounds for readjustment, or eventually revolution.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 24 2018, @02:01PM (3 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @02:01PM (#627130)

      Large corporations don't belong on that list.

      Have you worked for a large corporation, lately? I did exaggerate slightly about being fired within a month, we had a colleague who went AWOL, no explanation, for 6 weeks - came back for a bit over a year and nobody bothered her - very low stress choose your assignment kind of work, then she left to visit her sick father for another six weeks, then came back and complained about the her working conditions, was offered a promotion and quit. And it's not just minority sex and color that gets away with that kind of behavior. I don't know why management doesn't do anything about the non-performers, but they don't. Probably because, even with probably 20% deadweight on the crew, we're still turning in profit and growth above the corporate average, so they don't want to mess with the magic money making machine.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:04PM (2 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:04PM (#627220) Journal

        Have you worked for a large corporation, lately?

        I currently work for one. Next.

        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:40PM (1 child)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:40PM (#627244)

          Have you worked for a large corporation, lately?

          I currently work for one. Next.

          No, you're currently on vacation.

          Maybe your corner of your corporation doesn't tolerate deadwood. The handful that I have seen the inner workings of all do.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:05PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:05PM (#627260) Journal

            No, you're currently on vacation.

            That's not incompatible with working. And it indicates further the bad faith with which you have approached this particular argument.

    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 24 2018, @02:10PM (5 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @02:10PM (#627132)

      there's a lot of work left. We haven't brought everyone up to developed world status, we don't live as long as we would like, and I'm still looking for space colonization. I'm pretty sure, I could come up with a ton of other stuff that we would need or like, both on the large and small scales. So why should we tell everyone to go home, when there's so much left to do?

      But, when the primary focus of the wealthy is on creating more wealth for themselves, how is that addressing the goals of people? Giving people more control over their own lives isn't telling them to go home and do nothing, it's giving them more options to pursue the things in life that they think are worth doing.

      Trust in today's free market is trust in the wealthy to set and pursue the important goals. Putting more power into people's hands means that the goals that are pursued will be decided by a wider audience. Bread and circuses? For some, and if that's what they want, with their minimal share of power and control, then that's fine for them. People who get together with common goals and desires should be able to get together and pursue them, without requiring approval from a trust fund baby.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:07PM (4 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:07PM (#627221) Journal

        But, when the primary focus of the wealthy is on creating more wealth for themselves, how is that addressing the goals of people?

        First, that already is addressing goals of people. The wealthy count as people despite what you may have heard. Second, in today's economy most of those wealthy got that way because they or an ancestor were giving people what they wanted and thus, addressing goals.

        Trust in today's free market is trust in the wealthy to set and pursue the important goals.

        It's worked pretty well. It'd work better without clueless interference from people who don't understand how markets work or what is a market.

        People who get together with common goals and desires should be able to get together and pursue them, without requiring approval from a trust fund baby.

        And they do. So no issue here.

        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:48PM (3 children)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:48PM (#627250)

          People who get together with common goals and desires should be able to get together and pursue them, without requiring approval from a trust fund baby.

          And they do. So no issue here.

          Maybe in your perception of reality. In my industry, first, it's a rare (less than 5%) startup that succeeds, as in staying solvent, more than 5 years. Of those successful ones, well over 99% are capitalized with more than $10M investment. The goal of basically all of them is to get bought by a big player with an exit price of 20x or better than their investment capital, because of the high failure rate investors aren't interested without the high multiple, short horizon buyout potential. In this environment, without $10M investment, smaller players can't hope to pass the regulatory hurdles.

          So, no, it's not only trust fund babies who have $10M+ to invest in high risk endeavors, it's VCs and other consortia... none of them apparently interested in anything other than growing their outsized net-worth as quickly as possible.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:08PM (2 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:08PM (#627261) Journal

            In my industry, first, it's a rare (less than 5%) startup that succeeds, as in staying solvent, more than 5 years.

            Quite irrelevant to the quote you replied to.

            In this environment, without $10M investment, smaller players can't hope to pass the regulatory hurdles.

            Oh look, the same players who are going to rescue us with UBI are causing this major problem in your industry.

            So, no, it's not only trust fund babies who have $10M+ to invest in high risk endeavors, it's VCs and other consortia... none of them apparently interested in anything other than growing their outsized net-worth as quickly as possible.

            Their motives don't have to be pure. Again this is quite irrelevant to the topic of discussion.

            • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:30PM (1 child)

              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:30PM (#627272)

              In this environment, without $10M investment, smaller players can't hope to pass the regulatory hurdles.

              Oh look, the same players who are going to rescue us with UBI are causing this major problem in your industry.

              You think these assholes pay significant amounts of income tax? These are gamblers, and they lose as much as they win. The losers pay zero, the winners defer their capital gains and end up paying greatly reduced rates by all sorts of methods, most of which they wrote into the tax code themselves and handed to their pet legislators to enact.

              --
              🌻🌻 [google.com]
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:38PM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:38PM (#627277) Journal

                You think these assholes pay significant amounts of income tax?

                Yes.

                These are gamblers, and they lose as much as they win.

                Then you don't understand that sort of investment.

    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 24 2018, @02:13PM (30 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @02:13PM (#627134)

      Proof by movie. Very professional.

      Minor point, not intended as proof, just an example that there are other people, people with significant resources, who also think that untended waste is more than just unsightly.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:08PM (29 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:08PM (#627224) Journal

        just an example that there are other people, people with significant resources, who also think that untended waste is more than just unsightly.

        And having significant resources makes you an expert on things that you don't know much about?

        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:50PM (28 children)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:50PM (#627251)

          And having significant resources makes you an expert on things that you don't know much about?

          No, but since you seem content to labor at the will of those with vast multiples of your wealth, it would seem to be a token of worth to you.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:16PM (27 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:16PM (#627264) Journal

            No, but since you seem content to labor at the will of those with vast multiples of your wealth, it would seem to be a token of worth to you.

            That's because you're not thinking. It's hard enough speaking with you with you inventing cartoonish straw men of me. I'm content to labor because I'm happy enough with the work (particularly since it is in Yellowstone National Park) and it is a mutually beneficial relationship. I simply don't care how much wealth they have because that is irrelevant to me.

            • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:50PM (26 children)

              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:50PM (#627285)

              I simply don't care how much wealth they have because that is irrelevant to me.

              I don't particularly care how much wealth my employers have... it really doesn't bother me at all.

              I do particularly care that the economic landscape is dominated by giants.

              If you ever get done ranting on the internet and try your hand at curing cancer, good luck getting your solution marketed without approval from very deep pockets. At that point you might start caring about the wealthy, their control of the world, and their pervasive lack of caring about much besides making themselves even more wealthy.

              I worked with docs researching and developing a cure for meconium aspiration [healthline.com], which could save thousands of babies which die every year from this bit: "Your doctor may need to place a tube in your newborn’s windpipe to help them breathe if the infant is very ill or not breathing on their own." When a newborn gets to that point, their survival rate is ~50%. In animal models, we demonstrated a 5/10 survival rate in the control group and 10/10 not only survival but rapid recovery in the new treatment group. It's a little device, fits on a desktop, and it's not commercially viable, meaning that the investment required to put it into the marketplace isn't going to net a 20x ROI for investors within 5 years after investment. So, it's been academically published and forgotten for 15+ years now.

              Tell me how you feel when you know you've cured a form of cancer and you have to stand next to parents whose young child is dying of your cancer, and you can't even tell them about the cure (without crushing their souls) because it's not commercially viable, therefore not approved for use, and their doctor isn't willing to risk his license or job at the hospital by stirring up a big pot of (expensive and time consuming) "humanitarian exemption, experimental treatment" paperwork.

              --
              🌻🌻 [google.com]
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 24 2018, @09:17PM (25 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 24 2018, @09:17PM (#627384) Journal

                If you ever get done ranting on the internet and try your hand at curing cancer, good luck getting your solution marketed without approval from very deep pockets. At that point you might start caring about the wealthy, their control of the world, and their pervasive lack of caring about much besides making themselves even more wealthy.

                What is particularly bizarre about your complaints is how small-minded and irrelevant they are. This situation is far better than having only a few governments able to muster the resources needed. The pool of private-side deep pockets is at least a couple orders of magnitude larger in number. And the morality is misplaced. The whole point of a capitalist system is that you no longer have to care about the motivations of those with deep pockets. They get wealthier by finding things that others are willing to pay for.

                In animal models, we demonstrated a 5/10 survival rate in the control group and 10/10 not only survival but rapid recovery in the new treatment group. It's a little device, fits on a desktop, and it's not commercially viable, meaning that the investment required to put it into the marketplace isn't going to net a 20x ROI for investors within 5 years after investment. So, it's been academically published and forgotten for 15+ years now.

                Not commercially viable? Sounds like there's some bullshit in your story somewhere. If you can save the lives of thousands of infants each year, that's quite a bit of money. Would cover your human testing costs for sure.

                Hate to say it, but sounds like one of those 300 MPG carburetors of 1970s mythology that the oil companies supposedly hunted down.

                Tell me how you feel when you know you've cured a form of cancer and you have to stand next to parents whose young child is dying of your cancer, and you can't even tell them about the cure (without crushing their souls) because it's not commercially viable, therefore not approved for use, and their doctor isn't willing to risk his license or job at the hospital by stirring up a big pot of (expensive and time consuming) "humanitarian exemption, experimental treatment" paperwork.

                Note how you fail to mention even a single problem that is associated with deep pockets. It's regulation and liability strangling this scenario.

                • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 24 2018, @10:16PM (3 children)

                  by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @10:16PM (#627417)

                  Not commercially viable? Sounds like there's some bullshit in your story somewhere.

                  Nope, the bullshit is in the system. The barriers to entry are real, and the money required to surmount those barriers either comes from (rare) humanitarian donors who have thousands of "worthy" causes to pick from, or most often from greed-driven investors looking to maximize ROI.

                  Here's one of the papers, this one showed 6 controls vs 6 test subjects, we did many more but not with as much experimental rigor: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11090601 [nih.gov]

                  Here's a more modern paper that is actually picking up some of the bits [hindawi.com] from the method we developed and using them to good effect, but not as dramatically as we saw in the piglets with the pGz method. Note that release of endogenous nitric oxide (via pGz) is inherently safe, inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) is tricky stuff - yes, the very same that turns the fingernails cherry red shortly before death by asphyxiation when running a car in an enclosed garage. We suspected an endogenous surfactant effect with pGz, but I don't think we generated conclusive proof of it like we did with the pulmonary artery pressure.

                  Their analysis of rates of occurrence is this: MSAF is present in 8–20% of all deliveries [1–4], increasing to 23–52% after 42 weeks of gestation [5, 6]. Meconium aspiration may occur before birth, or during the birth process. About 2–9% of infants born through MSAF develop MAS [7–9]. About one-third of infants with MAS require intubation and mechanical ventilation [9].

                  Taking the low end of their numbers, 2% of 8% is 0.16%, and a third of that is ~0.05%. So, of ~4 million live births in the US in 2017, >2000 of these newbies went on a ventilator for MAS. Thousands requiring treatment, even at the low end of mortality estimates, over 600 deaths in the US in 2017, thereby many thousands worldwide. But... only somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.05%, or one per ~2000 live births needs ventilator intervention. Your average big maternity ward might see one or two cases a year, so: the mighty dollar wins again, more compelling things to spend their time, attention and money on. With infant mortality hovering around 0.5%, MAS only accounts for ~5-10% of infant death - it's not exactly "the shit" when it comes to attracting funding.

                  --
                  🌻🌻 [google.com]
                  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 24 2018, @11:37PM

                    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @11:37PM (#627451)

                    BTW, sorry about crossing wires on CO and NO, NO is nearly as nasty and does come out of most car exhaust in significant quantities, but CO is the one generally credited with killing the suiciders in enclosed garages.

                    However, the pharmacological properties of inhaled nitric oxide are not easy to separate from its toxicological effects. For example, the intended effect of inhaled nitric oxide, vasodilation in the lung, is mediated, in part, by increased cellular cyclic GMP (cGMP). However, increased cGMP can also interfere with normal cellular proliferation. Nitric oxide has also been shown to cause DNA strand breaks and/or base alterations that are potentially mutagenic. Inhaled nitric oxide can rapidly react with oxygen in the lung to form nitrogen dioxide, which is a potent pulmonary irritant. Nitric oxide also reacts with superoxide anion to form peroxynitrite, a cytotoxic oxidant that can interfere with surfactant functioning. The overall effect of inhaled nitric oxide in potentiating or attenuating inflammation and oxidative damage in diseased lung is dependent on the dose administered. Furthermore, despite rapid inactivation by circulating hemoglobin, inhaled nitric oxide exerts effects outside the lung, including blocking platelet aggregation, causing methemoglobinemia, and possibly inducing extrapulmonary vasodilation. The toxicology of inhaled nitric oxide is not completely understood and must be considered in the design of protocols for its safe and effective clinical use.

                    https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article/59/1/5/1658774 [oup.com]

                    --
                    🌻🌻 [google.com]
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 25 2018, @12:43AM (1 child)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 25 2018, @12:43AM (#627485) Journal
                    Let's look at the first sentence of the abstract:

                    The hemodynamic effects of periodic acceleration (pG(z)), induced in the spinal axis with noninvasive motion ventilation (NIMV), were studied in a piglet model of pulmonary hypertension associated with meconium aspiration.

                    What you neglected to mention here is that this is whole body periodic acceleration (along the head-foot or "spinal axis" direction). So not only do we need the alleged, cheap piece of gear, we need all supporting gear that attaches to the patient (particularly things like IV needles, face masks, tracheal tubes, and electrodes) to be able to handle those acceleration conditions. There is this huge testing cost over numerous items that have to be engineered for this environment. It's quite unfair to blame this on the profit motive when it is a problem for any sort of research.

                    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 25 2018, @01:28AM

                      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 25 2018, @01:28AM (#627501)

                      What you neglected to mention here is that this is whole body periodic acceleration (along the head-foot or "spinal axis" direction). So not only do we need the alleged, cheap piece of gear, we need all supporting gear that attaches to the patient (particularly things like IV needles, face masks, tracheal tubes, and electrodes) to be able to handle those acceleration conditions.

                      Valid criticism, and more to the point: it just plain looks weird and so will have a difficult adoption curve. However:

                      Newborns with meconium aspiration do not typically have indwelling IV needles.

                      A tight fitting face-mask OR trache tube is indeed a necessity for this therapy, but... the primary difference between pGz therapy and conventional ventilation is that pGz uses low pressure continuous airway pressure to keep the airways open, but lacking the high pressure swings of conventional ventilation which push the meconium deeper into the lungs, worsening the injury and prolonging recovery.

                      Adhesive electrodes are a non-concern in pGz, peak therapeutic acceleration is on the order of +/- 0.5g or less. In adults we found the sweet spot to be around 0.2g, we never did human trials on small children.

                      As for the "cheap" piece of gear, nothing produced as a regulated medical device is ever cheap, but it would come in at retail easily below the cost of similar capital equipment (~$30K back then). The money saved in reduced ICU stay time for the first 2 or 3 patients alone would pay that back to the insurers (though it would be hurting hospital per-case profit), and the one life saved out of 3 would certainly seem worth the price, especially since meconium aspirators are generally otherwise healthy.

                      The primary problem perceived by the pediatrician was that 3 cases need to wait for 6000 live births to go by, and that's a long time even in a busy hospital.

                      There is this huge testing cost over numerous items that have to be engineered for this environment.

                      And where's your expertise in this field coming from? Everything used was, and could be certified with off-the shelf designs, safety testing would be required, but it's not like going into an MRI environment where anything conductive, or especially magnetic, has to be re-designed with new materials.

                      It's quite unfair to blame this on the profit motive when it is a problem for any sort of research.

                      Back to concentration of wealth - this is a rare problem, 1/2000 live births. Things like this typically get funded by some investor who has personal experience with the human side of the problem, either their own child or the child of someone close to them. As rare as this problem is, you're not going to find that investor easily, not until you've pitched to literally hundreds of them will you find that personal experience angle, and the first investor who wants to help is rarely the one who ends up funding a project, it usually takes several motivated partners before a deal comes together.

                      Could all these problems be overcome by a dedicated crusader for the cause? Absolutely. Who has the time, resources, and interest? Not me, I've got a mortgage to pay - and did I mention that I hate begging? Procuring investment capital is more than a little like begging.

                      --
                      🌻🌻 [google.com]
                • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 24 2018, @10:18PM (20 children)

                  by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @10:18PM (#627421)

                  a single problem that is associated with deep pockets

                  How about their small numbers and hyper-focus on making their own pockets deeper, hm?

                  --
                  🌻🌻 [google.com]
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 25 2018, @12:09AM (19 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 25 2018, @12:09AM (#627472) Journal
                    As I already noted, they're far more numerous than the next choice, government agencies.
                    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 25 2018, @01:12AM (18 children)

                      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 25 2018, @01:12AM (#627493)

                      Well, the smallest, most focused medical device I ever developed was in-fact funded by government grants. They're not the best source of funding available, but they can work in places where venture capital fails. Also: refocusing money in the hands of more humanitarian-merit minded committees and less in the number crunching profit maximizers does yield different decisions and outcomes.

                      --
                      🌻🌻 [google.com]
                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 25 2018, @03:16AM (17 children)

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 25 2018, @03:16AM (#627524) Journal

                        They're not the best source of funding available

                        I guess you're not getting it. How many of these small government organizations willing to fund your projects are there again?

                        Also: refocusing money in the hands of more humanitarian-merit minded committees and less in the number crunching profit maximizers does yield different decisions and outcomes.

                        But not necessarily better decisions and outcomes. What is missed is that the profit maximizers are very good at what they do. And a project often needs that sort of expertise.

                        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 25 2018, @03:45AM (16 children)

                          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 25 2018, @03:45AM (#627533)

                          But not necessarily better decisions and outcomes. What is missed is that the profit maximizers are very good at what they do.

                          Which is: maximizing profits. Not every valuable aspect of human endeavor yields maximal profits.

                          I'm not saying "nuke Wall Street and give all the money to the hippies," but I am saying that Wall Street controls more money than they do good with.

                          Also: just because a project doesn't provide maximal ROI doesn't mean it should always be passed over in favor of one that does.

                          --
                          🌻🌻 [google.com]
                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 25 2018, @05:39AM (15 children)

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 25 2018, @05:39AM (#627563) Journal

                            Not every valuable aspect of human endeavor yields maximal profits.

                            But it does yield more than one puts into the endeavor. One of the things forgotten about profit is that it is a clear signal of positive return on investment.

                            • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 25 2018, @01:10PM (14 children)

                              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 25 2018, @01:10PM (#627665)

                              But it does yield more than one puts into the endeavor.

                              More what? Again, not everything of value is measured with money.

                              When I see the market truly driven by reduction of human suffering, breathable air, maintenance of streams such that the fish therein are edible, etc. then we can talk about letting the market decide everything. Until then, the imperfect system we have is a mix of market and regulatory / government forces, and the market has been on a tear lately (35+ years) left unchecked it will not end well for the next generation.

                              --
                              🌻🌻 [google.com]
                              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 25 2018, @02:46PM (13 children)

                                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 25 2018, @02:46PM (#627692) Journal

                                and the market has been on a tear lately (35+ years) left unchecked it will not end well for the next generation.

                                So has US regulation [gwu.edu]. In fact, the past 35 years is most of US regulation in history (the number of pages of the Code of Federal Regulations goes down a lot once one looks at before the Second World War). And unlike the market which has plenty of recent constraints on it (such as Sarbanes-Oxley [wikipedia.org], PATRIOT Act [wikipedia.org], and financial industry changes [npr.org] since 2008), no one has been similarly constraining regulation.

                                • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 25 2018, @03:56PM (12 children)

                                  by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 25 2018, @03:56PM (#627723)

                                  O.K. - hit a nerve there, Sarbanes-Oxley, the regulatory knee jerk reaction to the options backdating "scandal", is a f-ing farce in terms of what it really accomplished, and IMO another example of wealth controlling government regulation such that it doesn't impact the wealthy. The options-backdaters (C-levels) continued to get their options (just without the illegal backdating perks), while the rank and file employee IOPs (or whatever-the-f TLA) incentive options plans were suspended or canceled because the accountants couldn't figure out how to comply with Sarbanes-Oxley at that level, but they damn sure didn't miss a beat for the CEO, or his buddies.

                                  And, of course, the PATRIOT act is just a fear based power grab, while 2008 would seem to be self-explanatory as to why the financial industry needed not only a spanking, but to be sat facing the corner until they can start acting more mature.

                                  Yes, government regulation has been on a tear too, playing catchup IMO - when rivers are catching fire, previously prime game fish are poisonous to eat, cities are issuing summer smog alerts that you can literally feel your chest tightening from (the air, not the alert), mortgages are being granted without credit checks and sold into the most trusted of low-risk securities bundles, yeah, the "free" market clearly needed a shorter leash.

                                  Circle this back around to the unprecedented population explosion of the last 50 years, combined with the technological plummet toward the singularity, and it's not surprising that business as usual isn't working for today's society.

                                  --
                                  🌻🌻 [google.com]
                                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 25 2018, @04:40PM (11 children)

                                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 25 2018, @04:40PM (#627739) Journal

                                    O.K. - hit a nerve there, Sarbanes-Oxley, the regulatory knee jerk reaction to the options backdating "scandal", is a f-ing farce in terms of what it really accomplished, and IMO another example of wealth controlling government regulation such that it doesn't impact the wealthy.

                                    Too bad. It's still heavy regulation no matter what you think of it.

                                    And, of course, the PATRIOT act is just a fear based power grab, while 2008 would seem to be self-explanatory as to why the financial industry needed not only a spanking, but to be sat facing the corner until they can start acting more mature.

                                    No, they just needed to go bankrupt.

                                    Yes, government regulation has been on a tear too, playing catchup IMO - when rivers are catching fire, previously prime game fish are poisonous to eat, cities are issuing summer smog alerts that you can literally feel your chest tightening from (the air, not the alert), mortgages are being granted without credit checks and sold into the most trusted of low-risk securities bundles, yeah, the "free" market clearly needed a shorter leash.

                                    You're speaking of 1970s issues that were fixed back in the 1980s. Funny how that still gets used as an excuse three decades later. And yes, I'm aware of the Houston story [soylentnews.org].

                                    Circle this back around to the unprecedented population explosion of the last 50 years, combined with the technological plummet toward the singularity, and it's not surprising that business as usual isn't working for today's society.

                                    It's working well actually. We have a global move towards developed world status for everyone. That's what business as usual means. Funny how you keep claiming things like unprecedented population explosions. I've already shown the population rate has been declining for the past 50 years. Sure, it's an unprecedented number of people, but at birth rates that are much lower than historical levels.

                                    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 25 2018, @05:00PM (10 children)

                                      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 25 2018, @05:00PM (#627752)

                                      I've already shown the population rate has been declining for the past 50 years

                                      You keep showing projections, extrapolations, as if crystal balls accurately predict the future. If I had to bet, I'd go with the predictions you're stating. If I had to guarantee a range - there's a WIDE margin of uncertainty.

                                      World population tripled in the last 50 years and reached record high levels, that's unprecedented and fact. Any statements about the future decrease in reliability the farther in the future they project, to the point of meaninglessness at +50 years from today.

                                      --
                                      🌻🌻 [google.com]
                                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 25 2018, @05:46PM (9 children)

                                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 25 2018, @05:46PM (#627769) Journal

                                        You keep showing projections, extrapolations, as if crystal balls accurately predict the future.

                                        So what? You do too. Mine just are based on what's really going on.

                                        Any statements about the future decrease in reliability the farther in the future they project, to the point of meaninglessness at +50 years from today.

                                        Demographics is more reliable than the usual technology stuff that's traditionally predicted. After all, Malthus didn't really get proven wrong until the global emancipation of women and post-Second World War economy. That's over a century after his death.

                                        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 25 2018, @06:00PM (8 children)

                                          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 25 2018, @06:00PM (#627776)

                                          Mine just are based on what's really going on.

                                          Your attitude is that they are accurate and reliable, which is an impossible assumption.

                                          --
                                          🌻🌻 [google.com]
                                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 25 2018, @06:30PM (7 children)

                                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 25 2018, @06:30PM (#627790) Journal

                                            Your attitude is that they are accurate and reliable

                                            That is not my attitude. That's merely your straw man characterization. And what is the point of your lecture? You ignored the past 50 years except for the pieces that have confirmed your biases. For example, noting that population has tripled in the past 50 years while ignoring that the rate of population growth has greatly shrunk and that the vast majority of population growth (as well as other social ills like pollution) occurs in the poorest parts of the world. The places that have relatively free markets also have made significant progress on the very things you claim to care about.

                                            • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 25 2018, @07:45PM (6 children)

                                              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 25 2018, @07:45PM (#627824)

                                              All I stated about the past 50 years is fact, what happened.

                                              All anybody can state about the future is projection, assumption, prediction. Here's some Pulitzer prize winning projection for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sixth_Extinction:_An_Unnatural_History [wikipedia.org]

                                              --
                                              🌻🌻 [google.com]
                                              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 26 2018, @02:12AM (5 children)

                                                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 26 2018, @02:12AM (#628034) Journal

                                                All I stated about the past 50 years is fact, what happened.

                                                And I didn't disagree, except where noted otherwise (such as your erroneous characterizations of current pollution in the US and regulatory environment of markets in the US). But it's a very incomplete picture even in the areas you got right.

                                                • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday January 26 2018, @02:51AM (4 children)

                                                  by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday January 26 2018, @02:51AM (#628051)

                                                  If you want to deconstruct the dialogue, you mentioned something about regulations increasing during the past several decades faster than ever before, which is what got me rolling back to a few obvious reasons why regulations started increasing so much, starting at the beginning of the period.

                                                  --
                                                  🌻🌻 [google.com]
                                                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 26 2018, @04:22AM (3 children)

                                                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 26 2018, @04:22AM (#628085) Journal
                                                    They got rolling because of computers. It's vastly easier to generate pages of law and regulation than it was decades ago.
                                                    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday January 26 2018, @01:08PM (2 children)

                                                      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday January 26 2018, @01:08PM (#628245)

                                                      While I agree that the volume of text in legislation, documentation requirements for regulatory compliance, and high school term papers have all ballooned in response to the ease of production starting roughly in 1985 with the rise of the word processor (and really getting rolling by ~1995)... I still say that regulations against things like burning rivers would have happened even if we had to chisel the commandment on a stone tablet.

                                                      --
                                                      🌻🌻 [google.com]
                                                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 26 2018, @03:20PM (1 child)

                                                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 26 2018, @03:20PM (#628278) Journal

                                                        I still say that regulations against things like burning rivers would have happened even if we had to chisel the commandment on a stone tablet.

                                                        And did by oh, 1980 or so. But the regulation tarbaby doesn't go away just because the problems it solved did.

                                                        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday January 26 2018, @03:39PM

                                                          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday January 26 2018, @03:39PM (#628289)

                                                          Tangential note: I work with an electronic documentation system that traces its roots back to military projects like nuclear submarine development. In the 1970s, the paperwork required to specify and build a nuclear submarine outweighed the submarine itself. I suspect that now, thanks to the ease of creation, storage and retrieval, and the general decline of editorial review to reduce volume (and even ensure correctness or self-consistency) there's well over 10x as much "documentation" for similar products when it's all printed out on paper, meaning that the relative value of each page of text you obtain and read about such a product is declining - taking more human effort to comprehend the material presented, even if it is orders of magnitude easier to obtain - much like this rambling post.

                                                          In the multiverse where I was promoted to king of the Earth after roughly age 25 or so when I developed a fuller appreciation for such things, my first and really only agenda for change was the simplification of laws, rules, procedures, etc. Putting the bulk of accountants, lawyers, and other interpreters of the great tomes of rules out of work by reducing their complexity to a level that any reasonably educated person could come up to speed on in a reasonable period of time. Not only is it more efficient, it also appeals to that infantile concept of "fair" that is so abused in this world. Alas, this version of me does not live in that reality.

                                                          --
                                                          🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 24 2018, @02:17PM (18 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @02:17PM (#627135)

      What an enormous moving of the goalposts there! Of course, it's vacation. Of course, I'm not paid. And nobody gave me a unicorn either, the cheapskates!

      Not at all. Congratulations for reaching that point in your life when you can do such a thing. Double congratulations if you're not eating government cheese or planning on drawing social security in the future because you've been lucky enough to amass self-sustaining wealth - that puts you in a lucky minority. Point remains, you're not employed.

      You claimed it couldn't happen and I happened to be doing that very thing right now.

      Unpaid vacation / furlough is not the same thing as employment.

      Now, you're throwing ridiculous conditions on it. That was a silly argument and you should be ashamed for making it.

      Not ashamed, perhaps I should have laid out the conditions in the initial statement, I thought it obvious that employment = getting paid.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 24 2018, @03:39PM (17 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 24 2018, @03:39PM (#627177) Journal

        What an enormous moving of the goalposts there! Of course, it's vacation. Of course, I'm not paid. And nobody gave me a unicorn either, the cheapskates!

        Not at all. Congratulations for reaching that point in your life when you can do such a thing. Double congratulations if you're not eating government cheese or planning on drawing social security in the future because you've been lucky enough to amass self-sustaining wealth - that puts you in a lucky minority. Point remains, you're not employed.

        Do you not take pride in well-made and well-founded arguments? Let's review what you wrote:

        Try doing just what you want to do, when you want to do it, with no regard to your employer's needs or desires, for a month and tell me how employed you are after that.

        I showed not only that one could do it for a month, but one could do it for a whole six months! Now it supposedly doesn't count because I'm not currently getting paid to not work (even though I go back to the same employer, with a promotion no less, yay me). That ignores that I got paid earlier and thus don't need to get paid now. That's the power of saving money.

        But that leads us to the second problem, namely, you turned a reasonable question into an argument that has no point to it. We were speaking of freedom of action, not a fixed captive stream of money. Even with a UBI, I wouldn't be getting paid as much as if I had a job too. So not working would still be less money and thus, by your earlier reckoning, still not count.

        Control is relative. Merely paying someone doesn't give business ultimate command of them.

        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 24 2018, @03:50PM (1 child)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @03:50PM (#627183)

          Let's review what you wrote:

          Try doing just what you want to do, when you want to do it, with no regard to your employer's needs or desires, for a month and tell me how employed you are after that.

          You were neither employed when you started, nor employed when the month finished, from my perspective no execution of the exercise was even attempted, much less demonstrated.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:13PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:13PM (#627226) Journal

            You were neither employed when you started, nor employed when the month finished

            Both which are entirely irrelevant both to the subject of control by an employer and your earliest statement which didn't have that as a condition. Again, you moved the goalposts to a silly argument.

        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 24 2018, @03:58PM (14 children)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @03:58PM (#627191)

          Control is relative. Merely paying someone doesn't give business ultimate command of them.

          Absolutely, control is relative.

          For people who start out life with nothing, they do need to work for some kind of business to survive. No single business controls a person's life, but the collection of potential employers do, and when that system traces its control back to a tiny group of people who have nothing in common with the people who start out life with nothing... tales of the self-made billionaires are widely heralded, but the self-made are in a small minority, and they didn't get where they are without a very rare string of lucky events, usually combined with some skill, but the luck is much rarer than the skill.

          I'd like to see the tables slanted more toward tales of the self-made comfortable / reasonably well off being more common than the tales of the abject poor.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:14PM (13 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:14PM (#627228) Journal

            No single business controls a person's life, but the collection of potential employers do

            A collection is not an entity capable of control.

            • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:54PM (12 children)

              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:54PM (#627253)

              A collection is not an entity capable of control.

              Oh, how they love your kind of thinking.

              Note the first statement: "producer (or group of producers)"

              http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/monopoly.html [businessdictionary.com]

              Illegal, yes, enforcement is difficult, at best.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation [wikipedia.org]

              --
              🌻🌻 [google.com]
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:20PM (11 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:20PM (#627267) Journal

                Note the first statement: "producer (or group of producers)"

                You just made "monopoly" a meaningless distinction since any producer now belongs. Thus, you are part of the group of producers. Enjoy your monopoly hiring privileges!

                • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 24 2018, @07:10PM (2 children)

                  by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @07:10PM (#627298)

                  Only when a group colludes to be anti-competitive (like OPEC) does it fall afoul of monopoly definitions.

                  I think we had the idiot trucker discussion where that particular group can't help but race itself to the bottom, creating a stream of bankruptcies because there's always another idiot willing to do the job for a loss.

                  And this [youtube.com] is always a problem.

                  --
                  🌻🌻 [google.com]
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 24 2018, @09:18PM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 24 2018, @09:18PM (#627385) Journal

                    Only when a group colludes to be anti-competitive (like OPEC) does it fall afoul of monopoly definitions.

                    The term you're looking for is "oligopoly".

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 26 2018, @03:25PM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 26 2018, @03:25PM (#628282) Journal
                    Reading this again, a group here acts as a single competitor. Hiring collusion, OPEC, and other cartel behavior doesn't count because the members of the group have conflicts of interest and thus, can and do cheat and compete with each other. That's why we don't just have one word for oligopoly and monopoly.
                • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 24 2018, @07:19PM (7 children)

                  by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @07:19PM (#627309)
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 24 2018, @09:19PM (6 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 24 2018, @09:19PM (#627386) Journal
                    But not a monopoly. Words have meaning.
                    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 24 2018, @10:21PM (5 children)

                      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @10:21PM (#627424)

                      Monopoly (mono - singular) is the extreme form of anti-competitive, counter-free-market business practice, and doesn't exist in pure form in the real world. Even when AT&T "owned" telecoms in the U.S. they did not have a full unqualified monopoly.

                      --
                      🌻🌻 [google.com]
                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 25 2018, @12:09AM (4 children)

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 25 2018, @12:09AM (#627471) Journal

                        Even when AT&T "owned" telecoms in the U.S. they did not have a full unqualified monopoly.

                        Except that they did. They were the sole provider of local phone networks throughout most of the US. That makes them a monopoly in truth.

                        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 25 2018, @01:05AM (3 children)

                          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 25 2018, @01:05AM (#627490)

                          For most definitions of most.

                          OPEC was a cartel, they only controlled a large fraction of the market, but by (legal in their countries) collusion they manipulated the market price - when they could manage to not undercut one another.

                          --
                          🌻🌻 [google.com]
                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 25 2018, @01:09AM (2 children)

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 25 2018, @01:09AM (#627491) Journal

                            For most definitions of most.

                            By population. You're not going anywhere with the AT&T meander.

                            OPEC was a cartel, they only controlled a large fraction of the market, but by (legal in their countries) collusion they manipulated the market price - when they could manage to not undercut one another.

                            And no one here disagrees with that. A cartel is not a monopoly because it consists of multiple competing members.

                            • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 25 2018, @01:32AM (1 child)

                              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 25 2018, @01:32AM (#627505)

                              A cartel with enough market share to manipulate market prices, acting together to manipulate the market does run afoul of US anti-trust laws - when anybody steps up to enforce them.

                              --
                              🌻🌻 [google.com]
                              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 25 2018, @03:17AM

                                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 25 2018, @03:17AM (#627527) Journal
                                Nobody is quibbling over the definition of cartel. And OPEC, despite being a cartel, isn't running afoul of US anti-trust laws because it is not subject to US jurisdiction.
    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 24 2018, @02:31PM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @02:31PM (#627141)

      Doesn't strike me as a thing that someone who is productive by choice would say.

      What I would wish for, if I were back in 1988 with a magic wand to change the world, would be the chance to branch out and do my own thing in the marketplace, work hard to find something that people feel is worthwhile enough to compensate. Instead, I worked for guys in the upper 1% who had their ideas of what they wanted to do. I think, by choice, I would have started there anyway - for experience, but there never has been a choice for me, or any of the other sub-CEO employees of these companies, to chart our own course. In school I knew lots of people who wanted nothing more than for people to tell them what to do - I suppose they fit better in today's world than I do. There's the argument that I could have saved money and taken a risk, branched out and done my own thing, but the business starting world I learned involves securing investment, which basically amounts to begging for money while spinning a story about how the investor of money has the potential to make great returns on their investment - not so much in human terms of benefit of the endeavor, just in raw number of dollars.

      If you haven't gotten this by now: I hate begging. One of the big draws for me to UBI is the aspect that: anyone eligible for UBI has no reason to beg.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 24 2018, @02:35PM (6 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @02:35PM (#627146)

      If work isn't worth paying what people are willing to work for, then it doesn't get done.

      If the wealthy don't value a task enough to pay people enough to survive while doing it, then it doesn't get done.

      I'm fine with that.

      With the tiny number of wealthy who are increasing their orders of magnitude separation from the average population, calling the shots for people they have less and less in common with, I'm not fine with it.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 24 2018, @03:42PM (5 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 24 2018, @03:42PM (#627178) Journal
        If you value an activity and aren't willing to do it yourself, then you can always pay someone else to do it. And if the activity isn't important enough that you'll put skin in the game, then it's definitely not important enough for me to care about.
        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 24 2018, @04:04PM (4 children)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @04:04PM (#627195)

          then you can always pay someone else to do it.

          With what? My boomer parents with dual incomes and responsibly managed retirement accounts at 70+ years of age barely afford to pay a cleaning lady a couple of days a week.

          What percentage of the population can afford to pay other people to do anything? The Brady Bunches don't have live-in maids anymore, you've got to move into the upper 5% to start to think about that level of service. In a way, this is a good thing, in another - it's really not, because instead of half the world being able to afford to pay a person or two to help them out, we've got 1% of the world who can afford to hire 50 or more people, and 95% of the world who can't afford to hire even 1.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:16PM (3 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:16PM (#627230) Journal
            And here you go making excuses.

            What percentage of the population can afford to pay other people to do anything?

            100%. For example, they do so by pooling their resources via government. A private organization doing the same thing is not that hard.

            • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:57PM (2 children)

              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:57PM (#627255)

              pooling their resources via government

              And here I thought you thought government was ineffective.

              When 99% of the population pools their resources via government, and the other 1% out-resources the remaining 99 and mostly takes over government as well, where does that take us? Right where we're headed.

              --
              🌻🌻 [google.com]
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:18PM (1 child)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:18PM (#627265) Journal

                When 99% of the population pools their resources via government, and the other 1% out-resources the remaining 99 and mostly takes over government as well, where does that take us?

                The smart person would ask what did I do wrong? The first step was in giving your government a marketable amount of power with which to distribute wealth to the "1%".

                • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 24 2018, @07:05PM

                  by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @07:05PM (#627295)

                  what did I do wrong? The first step was in giving your government a marketable amount of power with which to distribute wealth to the "1%".

                  First, I was barely out of high-school when Ronnie Ray-Gun's goon squad rolled out trickle-down theory into the economic policies, so I guess I'll have to blame my forefathers for letting that particular pendulum swing on my generation.

                  Second, I believe if you look back, more deeply historically, government has been an instrument limiting the power of the wealthy - anti-trust legislation, labor protections, etc. It has been the wealthy's successful overtaking of government policies in the last 40 years that needs to reach apogee and start the pendulum swinging back.

                  --
                  🌻🌻 [google.com]