Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mike S. · 07-20-2003, 07:49 PM

Hey Farren, I just started a new thread in misc. as I wasn't sure if this was science/tech since my interest was more in the viability of the nano-economy.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=58474

Loren Pechtel · 07-20-2003, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by Mike S.
Loren, I understand now. I thought you meant you actually worked at a cabinet-making plant of some sort.

Well, I'm a full-time employee of one even though I do not physically work there.

Farren, my argument against nanotechnology in goods production is not one against the technical possibility of it happening but rather against the economic feasibility. Consider that most components to the majority of consumer items nowadays are produced in fractions of seconds with brute force tools and relatively cheap labour what is the cost benefit of having billions of interconnected micro-computers slowly rearrange microscopic chunks of material into the finished good?

Flexibility. Look on your desk--how does your printer work? I don't know your background, you might want to skip this lesson on printers: In ancient times there was only one basic technology--an imprint of the desired letter struck a ribbon leaving a mark on the paper. Basically a computer-controlled typewriter.
After that the dot-matrix printer showed up. Instead of having letters pre-formed they were assembled from dots. While this could be a lot faster (Consider that the main printer in college was fast enough that if you didn't know how to do it you couldn't tear off the paper as it came out--too much would feed as you did it, causing a paper jam!) the quality was poor.
Also, there was a separate technology that used actual pens controlled by servomotors to draw whatever you wanted. Slow but high quality and color. Solid color areas were a problem, though.
As time went on we had 24-pin printers. The quality, especially if you used two passes, was almost as good as the old typewriter units.
Now, dot-matrix is *ALMOST* dead (it still has it's uses when you want copies.) and it left two progeny: Spraying drops of ink directly instead of hitting a ribbon, and using static charges to hold a tiny bit of powder on a drum where it could be deposited on paper and then melted to make a permanent mark. As neither of these depends on a mechanical pin the possible resolution is a lot higher--good modern printers produce a far better image than the original typewriter analogues, and they can make any pattern, they are not limited to what patterns were built in by the manufacturer.
These days I doubt there's *ANY* market for the typewriter-analogue style printer for computer use. They are only used in typewriters.

The typewriter-analogue is the equivalent of making things by current techniques. Yes, it's simple, straightforward but it can only make what it was built to make.
If you want to make widgets it's cheaper to build a widget-making machine than to use a nanotech fabricator to make widgets. However, when gadgets drive out the market for widgets your factory is pretty much scrap. If it's fabricator, though, you just put in a program to make gadgets and keep on going.

Kat_Somm_Faen · 07-20-2003, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pariahSS
and what the FUCK do you propose that I, as an individual, do about it? b/c thats who your post is adressed to--individuals.

you know how I can fix the problems with my country? maybe you should tell me how--whats the password so I can convince people to get our industries back up and running? mind telling me how I can talk to the president of car companies, and convince them how to make their cars? maybe I should walk up to the whitehouse and have tea with the president.

you have problems with my country? good for you. but can you just tell me, what the fuck was the point of your post?

Lower the workweek to 30 hours. Also, internationaly, require any country to fight unemployment that same way. Share the available work.

lunachick · 07-21-2003, 12:14 AM

Farren · 07-21-2003, 05:43 AM

Lunachick:

ohwilleke · 07-21-2003, 10:29 AM

Loren's point, which is important, is that how you get classified in the economy has a lot to do with whether you do work in house or are outsourced. Outsourced employees are frequently counted as "service sector" workers, while in house employees are often classified in that sector.

If work were classified by its character, rather than the nature of its output, the manufacturing sector would have slid much more. On the other hand, almost every sector of the economy, but service, is larger, if you look to the ultimate nature of the output.

Loren Pechtel · 07-21-2003, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kat_Somm_Faen
Lower the workweek to 30 hours. Also, internationaly, require any country to fight unemployment that same way. Share the available work.

What if you can't reasonably subdivide the job? In some situations, 4 people at 30 hours each is far worse than 3 people at 40 hours.

Loren Pechtel · 07-21-2003, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ohwilleke
Loren's point, which is important, is that how you get classified in the economy has a lot to do with whether you do work in house or are outsourced. Outsourced employees are frequently counted as "service sector" workers, while in house employees are often classified in that sector.

Exactly. My employer is clearly manaufacturing. Yet my work is clearly service sector other than the fact that I'm employed by a manufacturer.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-20-2003, 07:49 PM	#31
Mike S. Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: BC, Canada Posts: 160	Hey Farren, I just started a new thread in misc. as I wasn't sure if this was science/tech since my interest was more in the viability of the nano-economy. http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=58474

07-20-2003, 09:01 PM	#32
Loren Pechtel Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Not Mayaned Posts: 96,752	Originally posted by Mike S. Loren, I understand now. I thought you meant you actually worked at a cabinet-making plant of some sort. Well, I'm a full-time employee of one even though I do not physically work there. Farren, my argument against nanotechnology in goods production is not one against the technical possibility of it happening but rather against the economic feasibility. Consider that most components to the majority of consumer items nowadays are produced in fractions of seconds with brute force tools and relatively cheap labour what is the cost benefit of having billions of interconnected micro-computers slowly rearrange microscopic chunks of material into the finished good? Flexibility. Look on your desk--how does your printer work? I don't know your background, you might want to skip this lesson on printers: In ancient times there was only one basic technology--an imprint of the desired letter struck a ribbon leaving a mark on the paper. Basically a computer-controlled typewriter. After that the dot-matrix printer showed up. Instead of having letters pre-formed they were assembled from dots. While this could be a lot faster (Consider that the main printer in college was fast enough that if you didn't know how to do it you couldn't tear off the paper as it came out--too much would feed as you did it, causing a paper jam!) the quality was poor. Also, there was a separate technology that used actual pens controlled by servomotors to draw whatever you wanted. Slow but high quality and color. Solid color areas were a problem, though. As time went on we had 24-pin printers. The quality, especially if you used two passes, was almost as good as the old typewriter units. Now, dot-matrix is ALMOST dead (it still has it's uses when you want copies.) and it left two progeny: Spraying drops of ink directly instead of hitting a ribbon, and using static charges to hold a tiny bit of powder on a drum where it could be deposited on paper and then melted to make a permanent mark. As neither of these depends on a mechanical pin the possible resolution is a lot higher--good modern printers produce a far better image than the original typewriter analogues, and they can make any pattern, they are not limited to what patterns were built in by the manufacturer. These days I doubt there's ANY market for the typewriter-analogue style printer for computer use. They are only used in typewriters. The typewriter-analogue is the equivalent of making things by current techniques. Yes, it's simple, straightforward but it can only make what it was built to make. If you want to make widgets it's cheaper to build a widget-making machine than to use a nanotech fabricator to make widgets. However, when gadgets drive out the market for widgets your factory is pretty much scrap. If it's fabricator, though, you just put in a program to make gadgets and keep on going.

07-21-2003, 12:14 AM	#34
lunachick Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: NZ Posts: 7,895

07-21-2003, 05:43 AM	#35
Farren Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: South Africa Posts: 2,194	Lunachick:

07-21-2003, 10:29 AM	#36
ohwilleke Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Denver, Colorado, USA Posts: 4,834	Loren's point, which is important, is that how you get classified in the economy has a lot to do with whether you do work in house or are outsourced. Outsourced employees are frequently counted as "service sector" workers, while in house employees are often classified in that sector. If work were classified by its character, rather than the nature of its output, the manufacturing sector would have slid much more. On the other hand, almost every sector of the economy, but service, is larger, if you look to the ultimate nature of the output.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.