How Amazon's Robots Move Everything Around 177
dkatana writes: Amazon's drones have a long way to become reality, but the real magic of the Internet of Things (IoT) is already happening at Amazon's vast fulfillment warehouses in the US. Amazon runs a fleet of thousands of small robots moving storage pods around so orders can be fulfilled in record time. They are so efficient that they can move an entire warehouse and have ready to operate again during the weekend. All together the small robots have traveled over 93 million miles — almost the distance from Earth to the Sun.
K-CHAT (Score:2)
In the future, there will be robots.
Re: (Score:2)
I read the article, and failed to see how this had anything to do with IoT, other than the fact that the speaker was at an IoT conference. Maybe it's because orders placed on the internet are eventually routed to a command and control system that order these robots around? Or perhaps because IoT is a hot buzzword, and that robots just aren't cool enough by themselves?
Also, this line was hilarious:
To encourage workers to see robots as companions, each unit is given a different name by an Amazon employee, and the name is entered into the system, so workstation workers can refer to them by name instead of a serial number.
And yet, when they show a picture of a robot, right on the front is a big number "12828", not the name it was
Re: (Score:2)
I read the article, and failed to see how this had anything to do with IoT, other than the fact that the speaker was at an IoT conference.
Robots are Things. You reading this On the Internet. = IOT
Re: (Score:2)
Internet-enabled robots were the intended audience of the article.
Re: (Score:2)
"I read the article, and failed to see how this had anything to do with IoT"
The robots, of course, are things, right?
But how the robots know their position within the warehouse? How they know they are picking the right package? Maybe because the robots, the shelves and the packages have microchips (i.e. RFID) that allows them to interact, both among themselves and the central provisioning systems?
Amazon Warehouse workers should demand more money! (Score:5, Interesting)
The irony to this is that a lot of low skilled workers are currently demanding more money for their current jobs. Raises to the min wage of $15/hr and so on.
http://www.businessinsider.com... [businessinsider.com]
The company's robot can "slice toppings like tomatoes and pickles immediately before it places the slice onto your burger, giving you the freshest burger possible." The robot is "more consistent, more sanitary, and can produce ~360 hamburgers per hour." That's one burger every 10 seconds.
One of these robots in a McDonald's could probably replace 4 or more employees. If McDonald's isn't testing these now, they're nuts.
Momentum Machines cofounder Alexandros Vardakostas told Xconomy his "device isnâ(TM)t meant to make employees more efficient. Itâ(TM)s meant to completely obviate them." Indeed, marketing copy on the company's site reads that their automaton "does everything employees can do, except better."
The same is true of the Amazon Warehouse robots, those jobs are history...
Yes, yes, there will be new jobs building these robots, but do you believe that someone who used to flip burgers is now going to build robots? Do you think it will take just as many of them to build the robots?
We are approaching a point where we no longer need all the people we have to do all the things that need to be done. This will be an interesting challenge for the 21st century, what do we do with all the people who are no longer required to make stuff?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not irony.
Chinese noodle workers who make under $400 a year were replaced by robots.
Think you can live in the 1st world for $400 a year?
There is plenty of food, water, and resources for everyone.
We share or things get ugly asthey have over and over and over in the past.
Robot jobs are two to three orders of magnitude fewer than the industries they are replacing.
We'll either go to a basic income, or a revolution, or a tax on robotic labor, etc. etc.
You can have 30% of the population starving, homeless, a
Re: (Score:2)
There is plenty of food, water, and resources for everyone.
No, there's not.
We share or things get ugly asthey have over and over and over in the past.
Hint: things are going to get ugly.
Re: (Score:2)
Um. Yes there is.
See I can do the same thing.
Link it.
We have a distribution problem. Not a raw resource problem.
Everyone on earth could live better than u.s. citizens did in the 1950s. No one needs to starve. No one needs to be without shelter. No one needs to be without water. And really no one needs to be without entertainment or cheap intoxicants.
That, friends, and family is all most people in the world has needed to be happy for most of time.
The few rare birds with genius level talent could still
Re:Amazon Warehouse workers should demand more mon (Score:4, Insightful)
So, while my automated factory dismantles the solar system to build my trillion robot army, where you expect to get your resources from?
Only those with a massive lack of imagination (like, say, Marxists) believe there are plenty of resources.
Re: (Score:2)
So, while my automated factory dismantles the solar system to build my trillion robot army, where you expect to get your resources from?
Only those with a massive lack of imagination (like, say, Marxists) believe there are plenty of resources."
I'm one of those marxists and before you could start your robot army we already built one (is good to have a whole country's resources at your disposal) and crushed you.
One can think that human race will learn sooner or later and my marxist country will be an utopian l
Re: (Score:3)
We share or things get ugly as they have over and over and over in the past.
During the last century the worst ugliness was caused by the mandatory "sharing" that you propose as the solution.
Re: (Score:2)
During the last century the worst ugliness was caused by the mandatory "sharing" that you propose as the solution.
Unless he means a different kind of sharing.
Re: (Score:3)
"During the last century the worst ugliness was caused by the mandatory "sharing" that you propose as the solution."
Uhhh... People living in Northern Europe probably will disagree.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is plenty of food, water, and resources for everyone.
There's adequate food, water and resources. Not everyone is happy with that. (That may be a problem with their happiness, but the problem is still there.)
Re: (Score:2)
"The morality of: 99% votes to take the most from 1% is obvious for what it is - highway robbery. Under such circumstances any methods of fighting against this oppression are justified."
OR, we can make the 99% to own the means of production instead of just 1% and therefore those 99% will not be taking an unfair share from the 1% but will take from their already owned 99%.
"Let people build new companies"
Yes. And then allow the people to own them. Taxes (at its current levels) can be used to build roads, pa
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Amazon Warehouse workers should demand more mon (Score:5, Interesting)
The same thing we've always done: belittle and mock them for being unable to get a job. While we wait for that time to come, we'll do the same thing we've been doing: belittle and mock people for thinking that robots will ever replace people at their job.
Re: (Score:2)
We are approaching a point where we no longer need all the people we have to do all the things that need to be done. This will be an interesting challenge for the 21st century, what do we do with all the people who are no longer required to make stuff?
The bigger issue is how do we get people to stop making MORE people that will not have a role in society to fill when they reach adulthood. We're automating the world for the benefit of mankind, but continue to breed like we're all still living off the family farm.
Re: (Score:3)
The bigger issue is how do we get people to stop making MORE people that will not have a role in society to fill when they reach adulthood. We're automating the world for the benefit of mankind, but continue to breed like we're all still living off the family farm.
The developed world has a declining native population. In a few generations, we won't have to worry about robots taking our jobs, because there won't be any humans left.
Look at Japan, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Are economic ones the only roles that society has?
Re: (Score:2)
Are economic ones the only roles that society has?
For Marxists, yes. You're either a cog in the great social machine, or chaff to be tossed aside.
Re:Amazon Warehouse workers should demand more mon (Score:5, Informative)
For Capitalists, yes. You're either a cog in the great economic machine, or chaff to be tossed aside.
No. In Marxism, you work or starve. Since you have no capital of your own, you are totally reliant on the State to feed you. In Capitalism, you work... or do whatever you feel like with whatever capital you've accumulated.
Just a little tiny bit of a difference, there.
Re: (Score:2)
"In Marxism, you work or starve. Since you have no capital of your own, you are totally reliant on the State to feed you."
So, by your own confession, In Marxism is obviously NOT that you work or starve. You could try something along the lines of "In Marxism, you do what the State tells you or you starve" and then, the State will tell you to work, or to praise the wonders of the Marxist system, or to stay at home all day watching the government propaganda. But you are too biased for even such a simple rati
Um.. have you actually _read_ anything (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. We're heading for a world where all the workers own their means of production.
Yet the Marxists seem really rather annoyed about that.
Re: (Score:3)
How does that work? I buy a burgerbot and lease it to McDonalds instead of working there myself? Why would McDonalds deal with me when they can buy 500,000 burgerbots in bulk at a price far lower than I could ever negotiate for my single bot?
Or I buy a burgerbot and just compete with McDonalds, along with the other 499,999 people that thought this was a good idea?
Re: (Score:2)
Not a bad idea, except the others won't have a burgerbot, they'll have a burrito bot. Then you can exchange goods barter style and settle the difference in goods value with cash. TL;DR it will be like mom 'n pop stores, only miniaturized.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I buy an overpriced burrito from my neighbor when Taco Bell sells the exact same burrito for 50 cents less because they continue to pay less for "beef" in bulk?
Like the ones driven out of business by Wal-Mart, only miniaturized?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalists have an extra option in there: you either own the means of production, or you work for the owner
My means of production is a $29 keyboard. If I buy my own, does that mean I will no longer have to work?
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you can find someone else to work that keyboard for you.
Re:Amazon Warehouse workers should demand more mon (Score:4, Insightful)
Are economic ones the only roles that society has?
You may not think of it as such, but *everything* is an economic transaction or endeavor, since at its core, economics is the study of dealing with scarcity: of time, of resources, of personnel, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
The bigger issue is how do we get people to stop making MORE people that will not have a role in society to fill when they reach adulthood.
An obvious solution is to provide unneeded people with a basic income in return for sterilization.
We're automating the world for the benefit of mankind, but continue to breed like we're all still living off the family farm.
Birth rates are declining everywhere, and the decline is strongly correlated with urbanization, reduced infant mortality, and rising living standards. We could accelerate the process by giving 3rd world women access to cheap, safe, and convenient contraceptives.
Re: (Score:2)
continue to breed like we're all still living off the family farm.
The US is shrinking without massive immigration.
Re: (Score:2)
We are approaching a point where we no longer need all the people we have to do all the things that need to be done. This will be an interesting challenge for the 21st century, what do we do with all the people who are no longer required to make stuff?
Interesting challenge?
This challenge will overwhelm the American governments capacity to deliver social services, healthcare, policing, etc
Unemployment and underemployment will only continue to rise as automation and robotics take jobs away, not just from unskilled, but also from highly skilled occupations. The numbers will grow every year. No amount of election year politicking about job creation will change any of this.
What will be used to maintain control, deliver services, etc to a growing popu
Re: (Score:2)
This will be an interesting challenge for the 21st century, what do we do with all the people who are no longer required to make stuff?
Same thing we do with them already. Management.
Re: (Score:2)
This will be an interesting challenge for the 21st century, what do we do with all the people who are no longer required to make stuff?
It was also an interesting challenge for the 19th century, when steel plows, tractors, and reaping machines displaced all the people who were no longer required to grow stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is we really don't have any growth in industrial employment and a lot of the automation is replacing work in the service sector. The 19th century saw gains in both industrial employment and service employment. We've cut one of those categories and automation aims to cut the other.
So where do they go?
I suppose one answer might be an increase in nominal agricultural employment through urban, grow-local subsistence agriculture.
Re: (Score:2)
It was also an interesting challenge for the 19th century, when steel plows, tractors, and reaping machines displaced all the people who were no longer required to grow stuff.
Lots of people keep saying that sort of thing, but sooner or later we're going to reach the end game of it.
Yes, machines now make our food, those people do other things. They went to work in factories making stuff, but that now is done by robots or overseas by virtual slave labor (which won't last, but robots will pickup that slack).
Then they moved into tech and service businesses. But that has only so much room and will become automated at some point.
Or do you believe that we'll always find something new
Re: (Score:2)
"Or do you believe that we'll always find something new for humans to do no matter how automated our world becomes?"
Maybe yes, after all.
Asimov (surely not the only one) envisioned the end result of that trend in the Solaria-style worlds (10.000 robots per human and very low human population density): you see, it seems countries tend to reduce their natality rates as they progress social and economically so, as long as the "robot revolution" doesn't happen overnight if may very well happen that as more and
Re: (Score:2)
Solaria was a freak exception in Asimov's Spacer Universe. In Asimov's work, it wasn't an end result, but a dead end set up to die. His ideal Spacer world was Aurora, which had a high degree of automation but still had plenty of human interaction.
The robot revolution has started, and is moving fairly fast. As far as population growth or shrinkage goes, it is happening overnight.
Re: (Score:2)
And we pushed really hard to increase high skill labor headcount, pushing a percentage of those people up. Great.
Do you think we can keep doing that forever? That everyone, given the chance, can get a PhD?
Re: (Score:2)
Momentum Machines is something of a fizzle, it's been years since they made their marketing stunt but they've been unable to convince any of the big burger chains to pick it up or start their own prototype restaurant. All this talk of freshness and customization ignores the fact that the toppings are drowned in dressing and despite offering customization few actually use it because if you order a common burger there's often one almost ready to eat, you don't go there for a made-to-order burger. And 360 burg
Re: (Score:2)
And when they haven't really embraced self-service ordering which should be the easy part, well I think the employees are safe a little while longer.
Regarding this point, there is a fine line between saving money and having good customer service. That being said, Siri often understands me better than the 17 year old kid behind the counter. Honestly I don't want to use a touch screen order system, but if I can just speak my order, I'll take that.
Also, keep in mind the push to replace fast food workers hasn't hit yet because the min wage is still $7.25/hr. Oh sure, a few places it is higher, but you don't develop for a national chain like McDonald's ba
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, in an age of lowering wages (inflation means that $7.25hr has less buying power every year) and basics like food, transportation and shelter increasing in costs faster then inflation, who is going to have spare money for luxuries like McDonalds.
Used to be 3 McDonalds where I live. Population has gone up (almost doubled) along with the cost of housing and now there is only one. Hasn't really been other restaurants opening up either. We do have a Walmart now though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking minimum wage workers, people without an internet connection or computer and probably no credit card, little well enough disposable income to buy stuff on ebay.
Just like the poor often can't grocery shop at the cheap stores as they're often in the wrong location, they often can't shop online.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
what do you do if it's out of order
Maybe have a backup spare that can take over until the broken one gets repaired. You know, like how things work in the real world.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe this works for regular burgers. Can this machine make a Big Mac, with it's three buns and two meat patties? How about bacon burgers? Can it fry up the bacon? Chicken burgers, with breaded or grilled patties? How hard it is to reprogram for new specialty items? What about your local Taco Time? They've got all sorts of menu items that require a wide variety of preparation techniques, and they add new products all the time.
Any sort of device that could effectively prepare all those items would be
Re: (Score:2)
At $7.25/hr, I'd agree with you, employees would be hard to beat.
The question becomes, how high does that have to go before that changes?
It might cost a million dollars to put a robot into a McDonald's that can make most of their menu. That probably makes no sense at current wages. Maybe it doesn't at $15/hr either. But at some number it should.
And it won't remove all employees, just cut down the number of them. You might go from 8 people during lunch to 4.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but such things tend to be expensive because they are low volume and are used in commercial kitchens, so they can be priced higher.
Still, I suspect it wouldn't actually take that long to pay for itself. A McDonald's open 24/7 that can cut its kitchen staff by 2-4 people, works out to $1,839,600 at a total employee cost of $10/hr, with an average of 3 employees removed.
Now in fairness, it might only save 1 person overnight, and you might need 2 machines for busy places, but frankly it could pay for
Re: (Score:2)
There are 35,000 McDonalds restaurants. Even assuming you made a machine that couldn't be used at any other chain, that's not what I would call low volume.
Anyway the low-hanging fruit for fast food restaurants is the register. Self-serve kiosks are cheap - McDonalds already uses them in countries with high labor costs and ubiquitous electronic payment systems. I doubt we'll see burger machines while they're still paying people to take your order.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair points...
I suppose that it just shows that it makes sense to pay people to do that job, at $7.25/hr, but if min wage was really raised nationally to $15/hr, they'd start with order taking and move on from there.
Honestly, I'd personally rather have robots make my food anyway, it will come out better, cleaner, and healthier than if humans make it.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything you mentioned in your first paragraph is completely trivial. Do you seriously believe that it's significantly harder to build a robot that can handle a bacon burger, or a two-patty-three-bun burger, or a chicken burger?
This is just a robot that makes a tower of ingredients. Sometimes the ingredient list is "bottom-bun, patty, top-bun", sometimes it's "bottom-bun, patty, middle-bun, patty, bacon, top-bun". That's basically trivial. The only substantial difference between a big mac and a chicke
Re: (Score:2)
You're simply focusing on the idealized mechanics, and ignoring the real world requirements of the device. Such a machine needs to be:
* Affordable - the machine has to pay for itself in a reasonable amount of time.
* Reliable - a business will rely on this machine for it's daily revenue, and so it has to be extremely resistant to mechanical or electronic failures, and must produce high-quality products.
* Flexible - it must be programmable, easily integrated into proprietary ordering systems, and be mechanic
Re: (Score:2)
You could get all the criteria except affordability now. (It doesn't need to be integrated into existing proprietary ordering systems, which can be replaced.) Robots are getting cheaper, and we hope people will continue to get more expensive.
Farming (Score:2)
> This will be an interesting challenge for the 21st century, what do we do with all the people who are no longer required to make stuff?
Those people will still need to eat, need a place to stay.The answer is farming - either collective, or individually - everyone has the option to own in a piece of land and grow food to feed his family
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, if I can't find a job, I get shipped out somewhere rural, far from family and friends, and have to learn how to farm, even though I'll be far less efficient than the big automated farms? Doesn't sound good to me.
That's fine by me (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And what happens when BurgerBot breaks down? Is it assumed that every McDonalds will have a hot-spare or do you just close the store because there aren't any people around to take over?
You call the 24-hour support line to get it fixed. No-one's going to keep a spare human staff around just in case the Bot breaks.
It's not as though I've never gone into a McBurger and been told 'we can't make Big Whoppers today because the Widget Maker is broken'.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget electing governments that have kept interest rates artificially low for a decade or more, thereby making borrowing for capital investment very cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget electing governments that have kept interest rates artificially low for a decade or more, thereby making borrowing for capital investment very cheap.
Also making home loans for the middle class very cheap. I refinanced at 3.5%.
Re: (Score:3)
I guess you're implying that *you* have a brain and obviously you can explain this:
"Almost nobody has any real savings and so borrowing savings at a normal interest rate is impossible"
How do you borrow savings? I can't wait to hear this.
It's how banks used to work. People put their savings into the bank, the bank paid them interest on the savings. The bank lent out the savings at a higher interest rate and made money that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Only employees who do nothing but make burgers. In practice it can probably improve efficiency enough to do away with one employee in a ten man shop.
Touchscreen kiosks can replace the three that are taking orders. Even better, would be to appify the process, so you can place and pay for your order on your mobile device, get a text message when it is ready, and then pick it up at the drive-by-window by scanning a QR code.
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus Fucking Christ (Score:2)
They are so efficient that they can move an entire warehouse and have ready to operate again during the weekend.
Get it together, editors. How did you get this job?
Re:what about moving around people gumming up the (Score:5, Funny)
what about moving around people gumming up the works who are a in a win win win they keep there job or win they go to prison where the state pays for there room, broad and doctor.
Clearly they should be putting money into providing language education instead of female companions.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you, Bryan Killett (aka "khayman80") continue to harass me in Slashdot threads that have nothing to do with the subject, or if you reply here on Slashdot to comments made on Twitter, those comments (like this one) will not be accepted. They will be flagged as inappropriate and likely reported as harassment.
ESPECIALLY if you can't bother to stop sock-puppeting as Anonymous Coward. You've been told
Re: (Score:2)
Is that ad hominem really the best you can do?
It was a comment about the paper "Sherwood et al.", not the author Sherwood, you bozo.
Now get stuffed. This comment, like the one before, is getting flagged as inappropriate.
Re: (Score:2)
Lonny, I just showed that your ad hominem is completely irrelevant, unless you want to start accusing Carl Mears, William Ingram and Soden and Held (etc. etc.) of having credibility problems as well?
You showed nothing of the sort. I repeat: my comment was about the paper's credibility problems in the climate science community. It had nothing to do with the authors themselves. No ad-hominem existed. If you don't understand that there is indeed a credibility problem with the paper, a few minutes on Google will explain it to you.
Once again, you out-of-context misrepresent my statements. It's a shameful practice, and the only likely motivation I see for it is harassment.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, your baseless hatred of Sherwood et al. is completely irrelevant.
Pure libel. Wrong on both counts. First, the things I say aren't "baseless", and second, I have no "hatred" for Sherwood. I've made no such statement, and you're making false accusations again. That's just not despicable behavior, it's illegal.
Again, you have been reported. GO AWAY.
Re: (Score:2)
You still don't understand that your "recent comment" baselessly accusing that recent PAPER of having credibility problems is completely irrelevant?
Since my comment about the paper is what this entire exchange has been about, which YOU started by the way, how could it be irrelevant?
It's so utterly, bizarrely illogical that you would rant for so long about something that you say yourself is irrelevant, I have to say, once again, that you have given me strong reason to suspect you're a dangerous, stalking, harassing nutcase. And by "dangerous" I mean that you appear to me to be seriously unbalanced. GO AWAY.
Re: (Score:2)
I told you, I will not discuss tweets here on Slashdot. By definition, that's another demonstration of your out-of-context bullshit. Which by now any reasonable person would have to conclude is 100% deliberate misrepresentation. You can talk about lapse r
Re: (Score:2)
If?! IF the quote I showed him which I labeled "2013" wasn't from a 2015 paper, then Lonny's comment about a 2015 paper wasn't what this entire exchange has been about!
Yes, "if". Do you really expect me to be interested enough in your BS to check dates on the incessant quotes you make? What a laugh.
But since YOU brought it up: that paper has ALSO been criticized for its low-credibility theory of how low clouds and a new model of convective atmospheric mixing could (unverified and currently unverifiable) explain discrepancies in model sensitivities.
Yawn.
Yep. 2 papers (2013 and 2015) = 2 new unverifiable climate models that disagree with everyone else's climate mod
Re: (Score:2)
Doing otherwise is strong evidence that you intend (just as you did here) to misrepresent statements out of context. It is also evidence of harassment. Which brings up: why have you been so obsessed with my comments to other people?
Cross-media posting is one of the characteristic hallmarks of cyberstalkers.
You have been reported. Again.
Re: (Score:2)
For instance: John Cook
John Cook is not a "mainstream scientist". He's a cartoonist. [wikipedia.org] Get real. But of course, you have seldom let facts get in the way of your libel.
According to many past statements of yours, anybody on "your side" of the argument is a "scientist". Anybody else is a denier.
I have reams of examples.
Further, your statement that I have "harassed" those people, as opposed to just making occasional critical comments of their work, is libel. It's utterly false. And rather egregious libel at that. You're projec
Re: (Score:2)
"And by the way, if you really wanted me to go away, you wouldn't have written back again [archive.is]." Repeatedly. On both Twitter and Slashdot.
The circumstances are not remotely comparable. I haven't deliberately and incessantly intruded into YOUR conversations in order to harass you, or any other individual. You clearly have been doing so to me. I reply simply to defend myself from your misrepresentation and libel.
Your behavior is nothing like mine. In any significant way. Dream on.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you don't even have a single solitary example of me using that d-word.
Admittedly it was a paraphrase. Far be it from me to intentionally put words in the mouth of someone else. However, the gist remains... I have you on record belittling nearly every scientist I mention who disagrees with your belief, and putting on pedestals those who agree with it. I also have you on record telling me all about your apparently unshakable belief in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and that someone who disagrees is endangering humanity.
I also enjoyed (no, "enjoyed" is not the rig
Re: (Score:2)
Your comment has been reported as such.
Re: (Score:2)
Your comments DO have something to do with comments of mine in recent days which have been misrepresented, out of context. Yet again.
Your incessant postings of things which are completely irrelevant and not even roughly comparable (in context), is just more proof of the impression of "clueless nutcase" your presentation of yourself screams to others.
I am aware that you were not happy of my showing how ridiculous your arguments were on Twitter. But this isn't Twitter. If yo
Re: (Score:2)
I thought I had seen such, but it seems I was mistaken.
Interesting, though, that you would come HERE and add more harassment after you lost an argument THERE. Why is that, you think?
It could be that you are finally seeing the true way of ethical behavior, and replying to my previous Slashdot comment, in the same medium i
Re: (Score:2)
And your links to "lecturing scientists" are rather amusing... including the one where after all you had done was try to attack the messenger, I called you out on it.
The discussion here was not about the hotspot, and you didn't "debunk". You quoted one person's opinion.
Jane, you'll never realize that you're only demonstrating your own foolishness by compulsively lecturing scientists about what scientists think.
I didn't lecture yo
Re: (Score:2)
Snort! (Score:2)
Wine from nose: Snort!
Re: (Score:3)
He wants families to be forced out of work and to starve. That is so Republican of him. So Republican. They hate families.
Jeff Bezos has supported and donated primarily to Democratic causes and Democratic candidates [washingtonpost.com].
Re: (Score:2)
He wants families to be forced out of work and to starve. That is so Republican of him. So Republican. They hate families.
Jeff Bezos has supported and donated primarily to Democratic causes and Democratic candidates [washingtonpost.com].
Don't confuse him with reality :)
To these folks the word "Republican" is just a meaningless pejorative. Their use of the word betrays no actual knowledge at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I find there are generally two kinds of self-styled "progressives":
1) Those who feel the need to create straw men.
2) Meh. Actually there's only one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Quite a few evangelicals are very happy speaking out against what Jesus taught. There's been "prosperity gospel" churches around for a long time, despite the fact that Jesus was very clear on the accumulation of wealth and the paying of taxes.
Personally, I find it frightening that I'm closer to what Jesus is said to want than that many Christians.
Re: (Score:2)