Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Last Chance - Get 15% off sitewide on Slashdot Deals with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Way incomplete, and one-sied sourcing (Score 1) 3

No compensation at all? Or is several months severance pay contingent on providing said support?

Almost certainly the latter, because no matter how much the anti-capitalists try to phrase it, companies have no right to enslave former employees (or even current employees) for two years after they quit. All they cn do is offer some inducement to be on call, such as ... pay! Whether that pay is sufficient is entirely a matter between (former) employer and employer. Whether former employee's prospective new employers would want to hire someone under such a contract is a different matter too.

Comment Re: Weep for humanity. (Score 1) 375

The reason to save is so that you don't need to borrow in the future. Not all savings are immediately lent out, and it's only because of inflation that anyone feels like they have to, because savings not invested somehow will be diminished by inflation. Inflation forces people to lend and rewards borrowers, encouraging a society of people constantly scrambling to service their debts, terrified of all their "savings" (that aren't actually set aside, but are being used riskily by others) vanishing with a fluctuation of the market, and a tiny fraction of people with absurdly huge and diversified assets (the big lenders and rentiers) reaping the benefits of all that debt-servicing by other people.

Of course deflation has its own problems too, causing those who have more to get more, more quickly, without having to do anything for anyone.

What we really want is a stable currency, with no inflation or deflation, where people can work, actually save when times are good instead of "investing" their earnings in risky ventures, and then "borrow" from themselves (spend from their own savings) in the future when times are lean.

Comment You don't understand much (Score 1) 3

Laser guns are fine for shooting down missiles, but on the ground? This isn't Star Wars; lasers don't stop after a short distance, and you evidently are ignorant of the maxim to know your target and what is behind it.

You also don't understand the first thing about self-defense, as evidenced by "legitimate hunter". The Second Amendment is all about self-defense, not sport, not hunting, and that self-defense includes not just bears and wolves, but also criminals and governments.

You seem completely ignorant about the changes 3D printers are making. Pretty soon, it will be utterly irrelevant what governments want to do about guns; anyone will be able to make guns and ammo from raw materials which are used for vacuum cleaners, pots and pans, cars, houses, and everything else people want. Government will only be able to confiscate guns when they are used, and considering how many criminals, even in hoplophobe-friendly places like Britain, Japan, Russia, and elsewhere, have access to guns, this prohibition won;t be very effective either.

Which brings up the last ignorance -- history. History shows that prohibitions don't work. Prisoners make knives. Alcohol prohibition didn't work 90 years ago and doesn't work now. Drug prohibition has never worked. Some 25% of California drivers don't have insurance. All prohibition does is turn everybody into a criminal, which decreases respect for law.

Comment Is that a misstatement? (Score 1) 2

I remembered the rule being that adding programmers (or any other workers in any field) to a late project slows it down even more because the new workers require training from the old workers, which lowers the productivity of the old workers. It also increases the bureaucracy, adding layers of management and further dividing the work, which requires more managers to handle the increased communication load, making coordination harder.

In short, it's a very intuitive rule, and only about adding workers to a late project.

Comment Re:I approve, sorta (Score 1) 1291

It's very heartening to me to see that you are at least the second libertarian highly-modded in this thread who thinks that something like this is, at the very least, better than what we've got already.

For decades I've been advocating that we could comfortably get rid of a whole bunch of statist intervention and have a really free, libertarian market if we just slapped one simple elegant bandaid over the problem of growing inequality and concentration of wealth that comes about when you do that naively. (I have thoughts on how to do it less-naively and not even require that bandaid, but that's a topic for elsewhere).

Just make sure that nobody can get too far from the mean income, up or down -- that the further away from it you get, the harder you are pulled back toward it, but in the wide ranges nearer to it you're free to succeed or fail on your own -- and then let the market sort out things like paying wages and providing services as efficiently as possible, knowing that even the most desperately needy person is getting at least enough to cover their basic needs, and that the cost of that is being paid only by those most easily able to shoulder it, leaving the bulk of people in the middle classes largely alone and free.

Comment Re:I can't see how this will work (Score 1) 1291

I make about twice what the median American makes and I still have plenty of things (mostly a house) I could use more money for and work hard to get more money to get those things.

You can sure well bet that I wouldn't quit this job to live off of $10k a year work-free.

And if I was working part-time at McDonalds, I sure as hell wouldn't quit that job to live off of $10k a year work-free, instead of working AND getting that $10k/year and enjoying all the better quality of living that would afford me.

My mom lives off $10k/year because of disability, and believe me, it is a terrible existence. Even though she's disabled and isn't supposed to be able to work, she still wants to, because she needs more damn money. Of course, with disability, if she gets any job at all, even one paying minimum wage for an hour a day, she loses all her benefits. With a basic income, people like that would be allowed to work to better their lives, unlike with the perverse incentives current programs offer.

Radioactive cats have 18 half-lives.