|
|
|
SSChampion
Group: Administrators
Last Login: Today @ 3:50 AM
Points: 23,170,
Visits: 6,927
|
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Addicted
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 9:11 AM
Points: 444,
Visits: 77
|
|
Ha! When I saw the title I thought will we be working at the bit level or at the higher object level. I didn't even think of the real (can't even use the word "physical") layer of life.
As long as the electric grid persists a huge percentage of us will be working at the bit level. Especially as commerce becomes more and more driven by electronic transactions rather than the exchange of a piece of script for service or goods.
Look at it another way. The 20th century became the century of diversion. For the first time in history the majority of the worlds inhabitants had a large amount of discretionary time to "enjoy" and not have to work. Of course many of used our discretionary time to work and "get ahead". But with the mid-century emergence of TV and the late century convergence phenomena a large percentage of the discretionary time has and continues to increase in watching. listening to, and absorbing bits. Even reading is converging to bits. How many people have significant hobbies/diversions that don't involve bits?
Going out to run 10KM now. That's real. Except for my digital watch and MapMyRun.com. 
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Enthusiastic
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, March 18, 2010 1:27 PM
Points: 178,
Visits: 578
|
|
Speaking for my two college-age children, the answer is Objects. Kids in their High School were more than willing to use technology but I cannot recall a single kid expressing any interest in how their "gizmos" work, let alone to spend a career in the coal mines of building digital kingdoms.
Robotics were very big (building them), but there was a surprising number of kids, like my son, who are interested in teaching, and my daughter is studying to be a gourmet chef like her uncle, my kid brother. They both have said they want to work in something that has some physical result - unlike Dad's career building short-term digital fortresses.
Programming, and software development as whole was very exciting 30 years ago when I got into it, but I think these days the luster has more than worn off. We used to have countless development systems, where now, there are really only two and with software companies long since coming and going in and out of business, its not exactly any stable career.
Seems to me the answer is objects.
There's no such thing as dumb questions, only poorly thought-out answers...
|
|
|
|
|
SSCommitted
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 8:35 AM
Points: 1,679,
Visits: 2,069
|
|
Both.
As mentioned, there will be many more that deal with things at the object level. But, someone has to move those bits around for those to do that.
Wayne
For better assistance in answering your questions, click here.
For performance problems, please read this.
For common date/time routines, click here.
For CROSS-TABS and PIVOT tables, click on Part 1 and Part 2.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 6:09 AM
Points: 6,
Visits: 44
|
|
I agree that the answer is both. Certain activities (e.g. monetary exchange, written communication, record keeping, etc) will be replaced more and more by bit-based systems rather than object based systems. However, there will always be certain industries that are based around physical objects.
As blandry mentioned, working with physical objects is often more rewarding. While some of us can see and gain satisfaction from constructing a system as if we were building a physical object, many (even in our industry) cannot. Even I, on occasion, find myself wondering if I would have been happier in a profession with more physical activity, interaction, and results.
So, while some things will continue to move to a bit-based world simply because it makes sense, there will always be plenty of object based jobs and plenty of people happy to fill them.
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Enthusiastic
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 7:32 AM
Points: 147,
Visits: 535
|
|
Let's not be too quick to dismiss landscapers and other 'low level' jobs from the obsolete list. Let me illustrate - let's take a restaurant. Would it be that hard conceptually to keep all of the food ingredients in mechanical dispensers and have them prepared using sensors? Would it be that hard to have touch-screen menus at the tables (or maybe you could call up a menu on your touch-screen phone)? Would it be hard to have little R2D2 robots take food from the 'kitchen' to the table? How about having a camera over the table that can recognize plates and that can tell the difference between an empty plate and a full one. The R2D2 robot could stop by when signaled to take the empties back to the robotized dish-washing machine. You might need a few humans to watch over the process, but it's do-able.
Back to landscapers - if you can have a robot vacuum cleaner, what's preventing us from having a robot grass-cutter other than safety features?
I'm not sure that there is any object that can't be robotized over the next century. I think people will manage screens that tell the robots what to do. Forget anything that looks like unskilled labor today. The people who will be best off are the people who understand how to make the machines do their thing.
___________________________________________________
“Politicians are like diapers. They both need changing regularly and for the same reason.”
|
|
|
|
|
SSCrazy
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 7:34 AM
Points: 2,247,
Visits: 3,638
|
|
Someguy (10/16/2009)
Back to landscapers - if you can have a robot vacuum cleaner, what's preventing us from having a robot grass-cutter other than safety features?
Actually Friendly Robotics and Husquvarna already sell products that do this...
-Luke.
To help us help you read this
For better help with performance problems please read this
|
|
|
|
|
Ten Centuries
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 8:14 AM
Points: 1,060,
Visits: 3,836
|
|
Luke L (10/16/2009)
Someguy (10/16/2009)
Back to landscapers - if you can have a robot vacuum cleaner, what's preventing us from having a robot grass-cutter other than safety features?
Actually Friendly Robotics and Husquvarna already sell products that do this... -Luke. Dammit Luke, you used the force and beat me to it!  I've been wanting to buy one of those, but have yet to actually do it. Anybody own one/seen one in action?
Edit* - And I think the answer is both, but for the objects that we currently have today, the answer is bits. The objects will just be newer concepts.
---------------------------------------------------------
How best to post your question
How to post performance problems
Tally Table:What it is and how it replaces a loop
"stewsterl 80804 (10/16/2009)I guess when you stop and try to understand the solution provided you not only learn, but save yourself some headaches when you need to make any slight changes."
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Sunday, October 18, 2009 5:02 PM
Points: 9,
Visits: 68
|
|
| I also would have to agree with both. In the end is data and information useful without a physical (real) object to associate it with?
|
|
|
|
|
SSCrazy
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 7:34 AM
Points: 2,247,
Visits: 3,638
|
|
mikedotnet2 (10/16/2009)
I also would have to agree with both. In the end is data and information useful without a physical (real) object to associate it with?
42
To help us help you read this
For better help with performance problems please read this
|
|
|
|
