Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Social Skills, Competition skills (Score 1) 302

My 15 year old me is kicking me for saying this, but learning how to integrate into society, listening to other people's thoughts, and learning how to agree and disagree without going all Fox News screamy-shouty goes a long way.

I agree. You should have your child(ren) listen to Rush instead.

Give it a try. He's actually much more respectful of callers who disagree with him, than most people who say "Fox News" a lot are of those who disagree with them.

Comment Curious... (Score 4, Interesting) 1094

What happens to those who were making $15/hr or $16/hr? They're likely frequenting places full of minimum wage workers and their costs will now rise - inevitably - to at least some degree because of this. Further, they've all now been reduced to minimum wage (or close thereto) by the stroke of a pen.

Beyond that, how many jobs will now cost enough that automating them starts to make good financial sense? How many people with little to no skills - especially those without a good education who are most in need of steady legal employment - will find that their lack of marketable skills make them not worth hiring at this higher price point?

This is the kind of feel-good thing that bring down the middle class, raises some in the lower class (those lucky enough to ride the wave), and leaves behind large swaths of the most vulnerable people. What's going to happen is that people with little to no marketable skills in surrounding areas will get hired at the state or Federal minimum wage, gain some valuable experience, become more valuable employees, and then move or commute into LA to take jobs from poor, undereducated residents. This is an anti-poor measure masquerading as a hand-up. It will drive the middle class further down the chain (by negatively impacting their purchasing power), reduce the number of available jobs for everyone (and especially for residents), and drive many of the poor right into the ground.

Mark my words, within 5 years of this taking effect, all or nearly all indicators of poverty will worsen in LA.

Comment Re:Why did they ditch the TV? (Score 5, Insightful) 244

Because they have half a clue ...

Apple doesn't enter a market unless they see the ability to innovate and change it. They aren't always first movers, but they DO bring innovation and of course profits to any segment they enter.

The magic is in saying "NO" to doing things that don't make sense... entering a crowded, unimaginative, razor-thin margin, mature TV market doesn't make sense for Apple. That's why they said no.... No more, no less.

My company declines jobs and new markets all the time. We run some quick numbers and make a decision on whether it makes sense to take on X risk for Y% margin. Nobody calls us "magic".

Apple doesn't enter a market unless they see the potential to charge $1 for a lime that everyone else is selling for 50 cents.

Comment That's why they didn't do it (Score 1, Funny) 244

Because they couldn't overcharge. I'm sure they researched the industry and discovered that it is highly price competitive and that just putting an aluminium frame on it would justify a doubling or tripling in price. So they weren't interested. Apple only likes markets where they can overcharge to a massive degree. They don't want to just make money, they want to make stupid amounts of money.

Comment A two factor device (Score 4, Informative) 88

I know, only because where I work is using them. Idea is it is a general two factor token. Can be programmed by the end user or their org. Also in theory a lot of companies could all use their platform and you have one two factor device for everything but in reality you use it for whatever your company does and nothing else.

Once programmed it acts like a HID class keyboard. You push the button, it spits out a string of characters, that being the two factor code for your account at the time.

Comment Re:Mixed reaction (Score 1) 328

The real issue should be is evaluating regulations that the Taxi companies have to follow and the rules that Uber drivers do not.

Why? In most places, the rules that Uber isn't following are because they are operating in violation of the law. They themselves have created the uneven playing field by refusing to operate under the law. The only distinction between Uber and a traditional taxi dispatcher dispatching independent cabs is that one uses a piece of software and the other (historically) has used phones.

Comment Re:I miss Groklaw. (Score 1) 66

You get trade dress on the non-functional part.

Orange's Orange garb is not functional in so far as the COLOUR goes. They can't get trade dress on the overalls' style, since that is generic. Nor on the vans an cars. But the colour, they can.

Same here.

Rounded corners (and don't give me BS about "it's not rounded corners". Go to the patent. There's fuck all BUT corners- not even aspect ratios or curve radius appears in the patent - and a picture of someone holding the tablet).

I believe the correct patent number is D670286. This is the first time I have looked at this patent. I encourage everyone to take a brief look at it, it is a very short read and even more ridiculous than I ever could have imagined. I've read my share of BS patents but this one takes the cake.

Comment Re:The UK, trying to beat China, NK at their own g (Score 1) 118

Did you think rights just floated down from the sky, mana from heaven?

No, they're inherent to the fact that we're living, sentient beings with dignity and value.

All rights are given.

No, rights cannot be "given" because something given can be taken away. Privileges are given and privileges can be taken away. Rights are inherent (see above) and can only be infringed inasmuch as we allow them to be.

That doesn't mean that, as you claim, there is no such thing as the word "rights" and every time anybody says "rights" they really meant "privileges."

Strawman; no such claim has been made. Precisely the opposite. On the other hand, sometimes people say "rights" when they mean "privileges" and vice versa.

It does mean that words have context, and that the meanings don't always align with extremist principles.

There's nothing extremist about living, sentient, valuable individuals having rights. Whether you believe they're inherent to the existence of that individual or endowed upon them by their creator is irrelevant. In either case, the individual is naturally provided with their rights as a fundamental component of their existence. Once this is understood and accepted, it becomes obvious why no law or act of violence can rob you of your rights; rather, merely infringe upon their free exercise. As limited creatures, we lack the requisite ability to alter the fundamental nature of mankind.

Put another way: you can prevent me from exercising my right to self-determination or my right to self-defense, but you cannot eliminate those rights. You can - at worst - kill me.

Slashdot Top Deals

After a number of decimal places, nobody gives a damn.

Working...