Comments on: Pushing Buttons Like the Jetsons

By: Vanmind

Vanmind — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 04:10:46 +0000

Pablum Post Alert.

By: David K. Meller

David K. Meller — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 17:52:55 +0000

Girl Tuesday,

A worthwhile observation, but the fact is that the Jetsons lived in a world and a time, where governments–and their extortions and brutality–didn’t exist! Living “today”, we slave away with more than half of our income taxed–and inflated–away, to keep our heads barely above water, so that billionaires aligned with the State can foist a ” New World Order” of slavery and misery upon humanity, and the future promised by the ‘Jetsons’ never materialises!

PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller

By: augusto

augusto — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 00:51:52 +0000

don’t they already do this with dogs?

By: Jukka M

Jukka M — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:57:25 +0000

and thank you Dan for formulating so well what me and certainly many, many others think. Mr Tucker’s articles are a joy to read.

By: GirlTuesday

GirlTuesday — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:14:58 +0000

I liked the show as a kid but even back in the sixites it had a fair bit of utopianism for anyone that wasn’t middle class and white. Intact family, “only” two children, detached, single family housing and no significant concerns about money. It cerainly didn’t reflect too many families I was familiar with.

And compared with today – I dont’ know too many American families outside of the professinoal class that can afford for “his wife Jane” to stay at home AND have a maid.

By: Dan

Dan — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:37:12 +0000

Thanks for the great article, Jeffrey Tucker! Your elegant prose and insightful retrospection about the simple things in life is a lot of fun to read. As always, a true joy.

Regards,

Dan

By: Gil

Gil — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 03:52:07 +0000

Marge Simpson?

By: Ohhh Henry

Ohhh Henry — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 02:35:07 +0000

In the future, children will be genetically engineered.

By: Del Lindley

Del Lindley — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 01:00:06 +0000

Mere conjecture! Give me an example of a cartoon character that resorted to using a hair-coloring product. And the indeterminate case of Betty Boop does not count.

By: BioTube

BioTube — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:28:17 +0000

Never heard of hair dye, I take it?

By: Del Lindley

Del Lindley — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:33:04 +0000

This series left unanswered the burning social question of how parents, both with bright red hair, produced a blonde boy and a prematurely “gray” teenage girl. Perhaps those futuristic postal workers (sans email remember) were doing more than just “pushing buttons.”

By: Freedom Fighter

Freedom Fighter — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:38:24 +0000

That’s what caused the fall of monarchy. It could not keep up with the “slow” pace of change in economy, commerce, people literacy and policies.

So I imagine a world where governments will fall one after another, replaced by cyberoneiric systems and cybertarianism.

By: Freedom Fighter

Freedom Fighter — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:36:13 +0000

One day, technology will advance so fast that articles will become obsolete before the writer can finish the first sentence. At this point we will stop writing technology articles, LOL !!!

By: Dave Albin

Dave Albin — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:35:52 +0000

And, it goes to my point above – as technology becomes cheaper and more wide spread, the less likely the state can control it (and hence, control us). The state doesn’t keep up with advances in technology very well.

By: Freedom Fighter

Freedom Fighter — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:32:10 +0000

You know what I would like and what would really make my day.

It’s if all that technology would start to become conscious, develop a mind of it’s own and takeover all together and all those people in government that think they control us would also become controlled like everybody else, now that would be poetic justice !

Absolutely NO privilege for anybody except the machine !

This is the world I want to see happening and if I can do anything to make this come true, it will be my out most pleasure.

By: The Fringe Economist

The Fringe Economist — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:23:36 +0000

I don’t think this is a problem at all. In fact it is a blessing. One of the main reasons is not only because we’re getting machines that are faster and have more capabilities, but they are also getting progressively easier to use – allowing access to more and more individuals as the cost of understanding the technology keeps decreasing.

By: The Fringe Economist

The Fringe Economist — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:18:16 +0000

E-mail is still the best way to market over the internet. Sure there are spammers, but the most profitable e-mailers are white listed and have very targeted audiences. Almost all have a “remove me from your list forever” option as well.

By: John Brock

John Brock — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 19:56:14 +0000

“The advances have come along so quickly that articles on technology written just a few years ago now strike us as old-fashioned.”

This is a serious, serious problem.

By: J. Murray

J. Murray — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:04:59 +0000

Google is making quite a bit with their context ads in GMail, so e-mail is pretty profitable. And they filter out nearly 100% of the spam with little of what I consider legit ending up in the spam folder. So, in essence, Google gets nothing out of the spam hitting their networks because I don’t read them and don’t generate advertising revenue.

By: Dave Albin

Dave Albin — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:23:18 +0000

Good article – I think the flip side is having technology forced on you by the government, such as the tv screens in every home in “1984″, which allowed the state to watch everyone at all times. The equivalent today could be the government using the gps component on our smartphones to track us, or the toll road-paying device to mark when people were where, etc. So, enhanced technology with the ever-growing state is a bad combination.