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This discussion has been archived.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, @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]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (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]