Automation To Take 1 in 3 Jobs in UK's Northern Centres, Report Finds (theguardian.com) 181
Workers in Mansfield, Sunderland and Wakefield are at the highest risk of having their jobs taken by machines, according to a report warning that automation stands to further widen the north-south divide. From a report: Outside of the south of England, one in four jobs are at risk of being replaced by advances in technology -- much higher than the 18% average for wealthier locations closer to London. Struggling towns and cities in the north and the Midlands are most exposed. A total of 3.6m UK jobs could be replaced by machines. The Centre for Cities thinktank says almost one-third of the jobs in the Nottinghamshire town of Mansfield, near the Sports Direct warehouse, are involved in lines of work under threat as robots begin to replace humans in the years up to 2030. Jobs at the highest risk of replacement include those in retail sales, customer services, administration and warehouse work.
at least they have NHS! (Score:3)
at least they have NHS!
Re: (Score:3)
Surely all these people displaced by automation can return to manually plowing fields and manually harvesting? Or maybe they can run teams of horses for the carriage trade? perhaps they can connect phone calls at exchanges? Maybe they can stoke coal in the boilers of steam ships? Perhaps they can go house to house collecting the nightsoil buckets? maybe they can go around lighting the gas street lamps? Can't they act as runners for telegraph messages?
No need to worry about automation when all the jobs I jus
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What is worrying is that jobs still available require more and more qualifications... qualifications that a lot of people can't get because of a lack of intellectual abilities. I live in Quebec. Here, there are about 53% of the adult population (between 18 and 65) who doesn't reach level 3 in literacy. What will those people be able to do in a modern society where automation is everywhere?
Now it's true that in the case of Quebec we have a lot of immigrants. And thanks to our socialist policies, many of ther
Re: (Score:2)
Surely all these people displaced by automation can return to manually plowing fields and manually harvesting? Or maybe they can run teams of horses for the carriage trade? perhaps they can connect phone calls at exchanges? Maybe they can stoke coal in the boilers of steam ships? Perhaps they can go house to house collecting the nightsoil buckets? maybe they can go around lighting the gas street lamps? Can't they act as runners for telegraph messages?
No need to worry about automation when all the jobs I just named are currently unfilled.
But they're filled. In fact you can do the job.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I get the joke (and it's one I'm going to steal, thanks!), but in case anyone thinks you are serious...
Abortions aren't done by the NHS, the doctor simply refers you to Marie Stopes and pays the bill - your abortion is booked on a time table set by Marie Stopes local clinics.
Re: (Score:3)
in case anyone thinks you are serious...
Abortions aren't done by the NHS, the doctor simply refers you to Marie Stopes and pays the bill - your abortion is booked on a time table set by Marie Stopes local clinics.
Yes, they are done at NHS facilities - although they can also be done at Marie Stopes, typically funded by the NHS.
Abortions can only be carried out in an NHS hospital or a licensed clinic, and are usually available free of charge on the NHS.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/... [www.nhs.uk]
Re:at least they have NHS! (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, that page is wrong (or rather, you are misinterpreting it) - but it was right (or rather, your interpretation of it) up to a few years ago.
Today, the only abortion referral across the NHS is to a Marie Stopes clinic - they got the NHS contract a few years ago, the NHS doesn't carry out "normal" abortions any more (only more complex cases where there are complications or other factors, and then they are not treated as abortions but treatments).
My wife is a GP locum (worked across the UK until middle of last year, when we left the UK), she hasn't done a referral to an NHS abortion clinic in several years, they all go to Marie Stopes regardless of where she is working in the UK.
What are the displaced workers doing? (Score:2)
Are they training for a new type of job?
Are they starting their own business?
Are they going back to school for education?
Is the company promoting those jobs being replaced and using them for something else?
Are they moving to a different location?
Efficiencies including automation has a net economic increase. Now this is being a big old average, so these people who got replaced will lose out, which some support services should kick in, as to lessen the effect.
They get unemployed, what did you think? (Score:5, Insightful)
Efficiencies including automation has a net economic increase.
Yep. And that economic increase goes entirely to the people who own the robots. Basically: the rich get richer, and the working class gets unemployed.
Wrong question (Score:4, Insightful)
Imagine for a second, that a magical pill is invented, that prevents any and all illness in humans. It is fairly easy to make and needs to be taken once only at any point after birth.
Would you be seriously lamenting the unemployment of doctors, nurses, and other healthcare staff — and begrudging the pill's inventor(s) and/or manufacturer(s) their billions of dollars?
Re: Wrong question (Score:3, Insightful)
No, but I would be advocating for tuition forgiveness, extended and enhanced unemployment payments, retraining, and public pensions for those who spent 5-10+ years training for high paid and critical fields that have now disappeared. Just like we should be doing now for those displaced in manufacturing and other industries.
Ignoring tens of millions of lives being ruined, even as a result of miraculous advances in technology, is cruel and unnecessary.
Re: (Score:2)
Great! So far we agree — even if XXongo does not.
So, instead of these doctors and nurses, who trained for the now-obsolete professions, it would be the colleges and medical schools, that trained them, that will be millions of dollars in the hole according to your plan?
Or are you going to use the governmen
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to "ignore" them — indeed, you can help them as much as you can afford. You can also advocate for charity on their behalf. But there is no reason, why these people should be helped by the taxpayers, and I fear, that's what you are alluding to.
Individual charity does not work on the same scale as collective societal assistance. This is well known, and anyone claiming that individual charity can solve any significant problem is either uneducated, being dishonest with themselves or being dishonest with those they are trying to persuade.
All significant problems in society need to be dealt with by society as a whole, not by individual acts of charity. There are no exceptions. Individual charity is always a sign of band-aid solutions to address failur
Charitable with other people's money (Score:2)
Translation: not enough people agree with me, that a particular cause needs funding, so I'll use the government's power to confiscate money to compel them.
It has long been observed, that inside every so-called Liberal there is an Authoritarian screaming to get out. You've just added yourself to the vast body of evidence supporting this observation.
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: not enough people agree with me, that a particular cause needs funding, so I'll use the government's power to confiscate money to compel them.
No society that grows beyond a single person is going to agree on everything, so it is necessary to often compel those to pay for and even participate in activities they fundamentally disagree with in order to form a functioning society. So yes, there will be times when even a minority of people should be able to compel others to take action against their will if doing so is necessary to run a fair and equitable society.
Is that your argument? That anyone disagreeing is an asshole?
No, I admitted you could simply be uneducated. There is no way you have carefully looked
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The government can — and should:
Thanks for asking. Charity is not only implicitly omitted, we have Founding Fathers on record explicitly stating, it is not there:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not use the government to force people who agree with your position to be the ones ponying up the cash? This would be more ethical.
So only people ethical enough to care about a real solution to the problem would have to pay? Doesn't sound more ethical at all.
Illiberal Ethics 101 (Score:2)
Translation: all of the ethical people already agree with ranton. Those, who disagree, are — by their own admission — unethical. It is therefore perfectly ethical to force them into doing, what ranton wants.
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: all of the ethical people already agree with ranton. Those, who disagree, are — by their own admission — unethical. It is therefore perfectly ethical to force them into doing, what ranton wants.
What asinine reasoning. So your argument is that anyone who thinks they are being ethical is ethical? If you think slavery is okay then it is?
You didn't formulate a response to whether or not helping these people would be the ethical thing to do. You merely stated that regardless of the morality of action / inaction, only those who believe it is ethical to help them should pay. That is deeply flawed logic, and a deeply immoral opinion to hold, regardless of which one of us is correct about the morality of t
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all. Congratulations on knocking down a strawman of your own erecting.
I did not — because it irrelevant.
Indeed. It is the only way for the government to remain ethical. Otherwise it imm
Re: (Score:2)
Out own money?
The 1% have most of the money. We need to take it from them.
Re: (Score:2)
Out -> Our
Re: (Score:2)
Cry me a fucking river. You train for a job that suddenly disappear? Your fault for betting on a dead horse. Most jobs being automated are the kind of stuff uneducated chumps can do, and we can do without uneducated chumps, thank you very much. Society is sorting itself out and the time is near when there will be no more room for sub-par people. And it can be none too soon.
Grow up. You think our neurosurgeons and cardiologists are the sub-par people among us? Some jobs really do take a decade to train for, and train skills which are not easily transferable to other careers. And while there may be signals that a career is ripe for automation, that doesn't mean our society doesn't need those jobs. If it was likely that cardiologists would all be obsolete in 20 years, we would still need new people training to be new cardiologists in 15 years. We wouldn't want a massive shortage
Re: (Score:1)
Unless that pill also provides all the other necessities you need in life such as water, food, a roof over your head etc. then what would be the point of living - even a disease free existence - when you have no money and can't get any money to live due to the billionaire miracle pill inventors having it all?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
...and actually, even the rich get f-ed by it too. The middle class mostly gets decimated by this - sure, maybe a bit slower and less harshly, but it loses out all the same. My cosy IT jobs aren't going to get easier to find, neither is all that Fund Management, management consultancy and whatnot either.
When we say "the rich" in this context, we really mean a small subset of them (shall we say "1% of the 1%"?). The rest of us need some other solution, which as far as I know, no one has really figured out ye
Re:What are the displaced workers doing? (Score:5, Interesting)
The North of England was the richest, most industrious part of the world... it was the heart of the industrial revolution, scientific progress and manufacturing globally.
It was utterly crushed, impoverished and brain-drained by various governments in the UK - and to be fair, shifts in technology. UK governments thought it could be replaced by the service industry - everyone selling insurance and basic minimum wage service jobs.
Then those were all replaced by cheap 'global' labour.. even the geographically local service jobs were replaced as successive governments opened the floodgates to mass migration.
Now where do those people go? Which country do they move to?
You need to also keep this in context - London enriched itself massively during this time.
And this wasn't some intellectual elite in London climbing to the top of the pile. It was deliberate policies to enrich themselves while annihilating communities that could not move and had nowhere to go. And then sitting back and stroking off about 'let them eat cake, get a new education and move'. Never bothering to explain where this entire population was going to get an education and move to.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Protectionism would have helped, not hurt. Free trade globalism is pure money-theory wankery and in the raw it inflicts misery on people, to benefit the already wealthy.
That's not to say you cannot have benefits from some globalisation... but democratic governments inflicted poverty on their own people on a nebulous 'global agenda'.
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, during the 60s, 70s and 80s, many northern "powerhouses" were instrumental in attempts by unions to dictate terms to successive governments - which is why the 1980s coal miners strike was so decisive, in that the unions involved were utterly destroyed while attempting to repeat a crippling strike they had carried out a decade prior.
It really isn't all about how London fucked over the North, the North were doing a good deal of the fucking themselves - they simply lost in the end.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that this happened in the early 80s and since then successive governments have continued to under-invest in the North and especially the East side of the country north of Essex.
When the coal mining jobs vanished and industry went overseas entire communities ended up fucked senseless and haven't recovered.
It's not coincidence that many of these areas voted so heavily to leave the EU.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At least they're clutching at the few democratic straws available. Not sure how long that can last.
Re:What are the displaced workers doing? (Score:5, Insightful)
It was crushed by globalism. Why mine coal in the North of England these days when you can get it shipped over from places where mine workers are paid the rough equivalent of nothing?
Why employ people to make cloth, when you can get it from abroad where workers are paid next to nothing and shipping costs are insignificant?
Why employ people to make clothings from that, when you can get it from abroad where workers and paid next to nothing too?
so all the old manufacturing industries that made Britain the richest country in the world - all the rag trade, wool trade, mining, heavy industrials, they've all gone elsewhere where workers are cheap. This is a net effect of globalisation.
Now you can say it was destined to happen, and it probably was once the world discovered it could do the same stuff cheaper, but then there was an issue where the replacement work was heavily skewed towards the already-rich, things like financial services, but the powers that be required a large mass of workers to support the rich, and so for some bizarre reason we decided to import large numbers of migrants from these countries so the workers could get even cheaper to support the rich, thus making the underlying problem even worse.
But the rich didn't care - they were rich, were getting richer, and any social problems won't affect them.
The question so what to do about it though really boils down to sustainability, so workers would make things here for large cost (think hipsters in Shoreditch selling organic coffee for £10 a cup, or t-shirts for £20 each) but applied to the rest of the country, and a reduction in population so the ability to do this becomes realistic. Minimum wage would have to rise massively, and benefits reduced massively too. And all that would require firm borders that prevent the $1 t-shirts from coming in, or the welfare migrants, or the economic migrants willing to work for next to nothing too.
And that'll never be allowed to happen, the rich like their workers to be cheap - back when the borders were thrown open in 1997, the cry was that nannies and builders were demanding too much and we needed to make them cheaper so those with too much money got to keep more of it for themselves. And so it'll continue. There's a reason the rich "metropolitan elites" want to remain in the EU so the status quo can continue without impediment.
Re: (Score:2)
Stopping globalism would have delayed the inevitable for a few decades at most. The more workers are paid the more money can be spent on automation that is ultimately cheaper. That's exactly what happened in the industrial revolution.
The point of the EU is to create a free trade zone with a level playing field. Where it breaks down is when new countries join and temporarily have much lower wages. Ireland and Spain were like that when they joined, but quickly came up to similar levels to the other members. T
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are two factors involved in "ability to afford". They're the price of the article and your income.
It's left as an exercise for the reader to determine what effect changing the former has when the latter is zero.
Re: (Score:2)
If anything, leaving the EU will further diminish the limited opportunities in the North as the economy shrinks still further.
When you have to compete for work with cheap European labour and wages depress as a result, the economy isn't really working for you in the first place.
So why not vote for change. It doesn't feel it can get any worse.
Further, you have not understood the problems of immigration and the full extent of controls permitted under EU law.
I understand that half of the residents of my country's capital city are born outside of the country.
I understand that a million economic migrants were welcomed by Germany and will soon be eligible to come to my country - and we can't stop them.
I understand that the EU fails to apply its own ru
Re: (Score:2)
"So why not vote for change. It doesn't feel it can get any worse." vote for change when you understand the issues, don't knee-jerk into chaos - the successive Uk governments are your enemy due to incompetence so shoot the correct target and its not the EU.
"I understand that half o
Re: (Score:2)
low skilled jobs are minimum wage so its competing work ethics not wages.
It's not just the no-skill jobs though. Low skill jobs pay more than minimum wage, and not even just those are under pressure.
A lot of Polish tradesmen and craftsmen (e.g. plumbers, builders, etc) came over and accepted lower wages than the locals. This helped the building industry but not the people displaced or forced to compete at lower wages.
so shoot the correct target
It's hard to find the correct target, let alone get the chance to shoot for it. As the EU is a material factor and was available to be shot down, people took the op
Re: (Score:2)
cannot see the difference between a refugee and an immigrant
If you think Merkel was welcoming just refugees and not economic migrants then you need to read more than the Guardian and the BBC.
If you think the millions of African migrants landing in Greece and Turkey are all refugees, you're just a total fuckwit.
they want to get here so why should France pay to police them?
Maybe because they're in France and the EU illegally unless they apply for a visa, apply for refugee status or otherwise gain leave to stay. Which they should be doing in the first European country they enter, not travelling across the whole fucking continent
Re: (Score:2)
It's better than moistened bints lobbing scimitars.
But not by much.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was Blair who signed the treaties that opened up the borders to EU migration from the new eastern countries. That's the point where migration really took off - policy that encouraged it, not just from Europe but everywhere else too.
Take a look at the population graph of the UK, it was 58 million and quite stable until around the year 2000 when it started to increase by quite a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
reduction in population doesn't mean what you imply - it means stopping immigration and sending home those who are undesirable to the state - ie foreign nationals who are unemployed, or have criminal convictions.
So yes, me first - I've gone right back to my country of birth. It wasn't a long trip, I admit.
The UK gov'ts never believed that (Score:2)
There was just a story about a bunch of American kids training to be coal miners. Folks were aghast, because the c
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I got a $50,000 a year job in IT in Silicon Valley and no one asked me for a high school diploma.
$50k in the valley is nothing. That's the equivalent of any clerical job anywhere else. The good thing is that the salary ceilings in IT are way higher than in other professions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They are blaming Romanians and hoping that Brexit will magically give them a better job.
Re: (Score:2)
Mass immigration was intended to suppress wage growth - Mervyn King said it was policy during the Blair years. [theguardian.com]
We know that a much increased supply of workers mean employee benefits reduce or disappear because businesses do not have to compete to attract the best workers - in many cases this doesn't just mean wages, but things like training disappear. IIRC McDonalds used to off
Re: (Score:2)
Business wants its cheap labour. If it can't get it from Bulgaria it'll get it from Bangladesh.
If those who voted for Brexit thought it would get rid of all the bloody foreigners and usher in jobs, prosperity, and unicorns for all they're going to get a very rude awakening.
Re: (Score:2)
The UK has a minimum wage, and McDonalds just pays everyone the same anyway - no one negotiates their McDonalds burger flipper salary. And actually the biggest thing to push down wages, which were growing during the Blair years, has been zero hour contracts. Nothing to do with immigration at all.
I accept that immigration does need to be managed better than it has been. Not stopped or reduced, just managed to alleviate some of the short term problems.
An in the long run, this reduction and Brexit in general w
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite - ZHC came about because there were so many workers businesses could suddenly get away with them. If there was a constraint on supply of workers, nobody would be doing a ZHC, they'd go get a different job.
This is the bigger picture view, immigration has given rise to these bad practices, partly due to a massive increase in supply, but also of workers prepared to work for very low wages. An interview with a lady working in hospitality and earning £10k a year said that she was happy beca
Re: (Score:2)
ZHC are just the latest form of abuse. Before that it wasn't uncommon to see job adverts in the paper like "security guard, £100/week, 100 hours, bring own dog." Then limits on working hours and the minimum wage came in, so they looked for new ways to subvert the rules.
Studies showed that immigration had at most a very minor impact on jobs in certain areas only. The fact is that most of those immigrants do not come to do minimum wage and long hours. They are young and motivated enough to move to
Re: (Score:1)
In general it doesn't suppress wages though, quite the opposite.
Do you have an example of a mature, steady country where a sudden influx of large numbers of immigrants triggered rising wages?
Re: (Score:2)
No, because as I said, there are acute problems when "large" numbers come, but at worst it has relatively short term little negative effect (for skilled immigrants, e.g. EU nationals under Freedom of Movement) and in the longer term is a net benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All that would do is put huge numbers of disabled people and people with childhood problems on the streets.
The system is fine, it's just the politics of anger. Shit like "Benefits Street" that makes people rage at the TV.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you draw the line? Should work-shy children who never worked a day in their lives but get FREE education have to pay in first?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Hey AmiMoJo, remember how I adopted the sig "The one straight white male in new Star Trek will be portrayed as evil or incompetent" back before Star Trek Discovery premiered? You know, because he was the only straight white male on an SJW show, and so I knew that he would ultimately have to be revealed as either evil or incompetent--because SJW's, as much as they would deny it, really HATE straight white males.
Remember how an enlightened SJW like yourself corrected my foolish misinformed view back in Octobe
Re: (Score:2)
What about Saru and Sarek? They are still good guy, competent straight white males. Well, okay, we are assuming Saru is straight, we have no indication either way.
Do you want to add a 4th arbitrary requirement to your claim, that the character has to be human?
Stamets is white and male and one of the purest good guy characters in the show. In fact he and Saru are the only two who aren't really tainted.
I mean, if we are talking arbitrary complaints we could say that the black female character is a criminal, t
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, you just keep burying your head in the sand, Ami. Keep pretending that all SJW's want is equality, and that they aren't turning white men into the new "dirty jews". Keep telling yourself that even as they turn every popular culture depiction of the straight white male into either a fool or villain (the same way they did with the "dirty jews" in literature at the time). Keep telling yourself that as more and more SJW-infested companies stop hiring white men (hey maybe they'll give a few token spots to g
Re: (Score:2)
Holy shit dude.
I just want to be sure I have your argument correct. Your arbitrary criteria (straight && white && male && human) selected exactly one (1) member of the cast, who turned out to be a bad guy (who may also have been instrumental in the good guys winning the war). Despite the fact that many other characters, including the black female lead who is a war criminal, are also bad guys you conclude that this is evidence that Discover is an "SJW" show, and as further proof that
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks AC, sometimes you offer me great insight and wisdom. I should not have forgotten your previous advice on this matter.
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re: (Score:2)
And now the Remanians are trying to stop even that from happening ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Just keep allowing random unskilled people in the UK every year for the "jobs" that no longer exist?
Nations are going to have to re think what work is and what robot related skills a few skilled local citizens can be reeducated into.
If nations keep on adding to the ranks of their unemployed/unemployable generations after generation that will be a lot of support costs and social probl
Re: (Score:2)
"Back" implies they went in the first place. Having lived in one and visited the others I'd say that's debatable.
South Park just did a bit on automation (Score:5, Insightful)
And no, retraining doesn't help. It's no good retraining for scarce jobs you know.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You make me want to go buy a gun. Not for defense. For offense.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I don't recall in my history books famine or wars in the US.
Well, that's probably because you've never read one. [wikipedia.org]
FFS (Score:2, Informative)
Not to mention the great depression in the 1920-1930s. There were food shortages and starving people for years. What is going on when such a obviously falsehood is stated, a sad result of the US education system that even the most basic facts are unknown.
Re: (Score:1)
Civil war 1861-1865. The north wanted cheap labor for their factories. Many people suffering now that the factories have shut down.
Re: (Score:2)
Civil war 1861-1865. The north wanted cheap labor for their factories. Many people suffering now that the factories have shut down.
And the South wanted free labor for their cotton farms. Many people suffered back then... without factories to exist and then close.
Re: (Score:2)
If none of that matters, I'm quite sure there are no laws preve
Re: (Score:2)
Go to foreign places, shoot all the darkies and steal their land.
Actually, seeing as we've given most of it back this could actually be feasible again.
Re:Think about the Ferriers! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Just because a potter could transform themselves into a buggy whip maker and buggy whip makers found work in an auto factory, it doesn't mean the progression is going to continue forever.
And it doesn't mean that said progression is bound to stop (either now, or in the future, or ever.)
People and countries need to learn and learn and learn, and adapt and adapt and adapt.
Will it work forever? Who the fucks know. But I tell you this. Not doing that, not adapting, not learning, that will fuck you anyone over RIGHT NOW. Not a question of if, not even a question of when.
Being unadaptable will screw you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it might not stop but you sure as fuck need to point to one sign other than 'it happened in the past' as an indicator that it won't! That's all I'm saying.
You sure as fuck need to point to something other than denying a historical track record as an indicator that it will.
Re:Think about the Ferriers! (Score:4, Insightful)
In today's world automation does create some high paying jobs, - for the ones doing the automating. There are other well paying jobs, but they typically require a college education. Rather than making the necessary education free, like what was done in the past, college costs are skyrocketing. Many (most?) start their careers in significant debt. And will that education be sufficient to keep them in well paying jobs for 3 or 4 decades while they save for their retirement? Probably not. Technology is advancing fast enough that they'll need to change jobs several times, maybe requiring more time consuming and expensive education to stay ahead.
I'm sorry, this situation is different. We are not prepared. I suppose they weren't then either, but this is going to require some serious rethinking of what society owes people, what people owe society, and how they should be contributing.
AI (Score:1)
Re: AI (Score:2, Funny)
Well its easy in your case because AI reads binary better than humans.
Re: (Score:3)
chronic nutter syndrome [Re: AI] (Score:2)
Many palliative treatments exist, but it's often recurring.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, boy! (Score:2)
I am really looking forward to the robot version of "All Creatures Great and Small".
Reminds me of the movie The Man in the White Suit (Score:3)
This report is a bit bollocks. (Score:1)
Re: Dumbfuckery (Score:2)
That makes no sense. Think about it, if what you claim is true, we can pay the robots to buy stuff from us genius.