Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Live and work in NYC above 150 (Score 2) 172

by GLMDesigns (#49544457) Attached to: I spend most of my time ...
Standard concrete floors are less than 1 foot thick and under that there are (sometimes) steel beams. But the drop ceilings often hide the beams and the duct work. In my office the drop-ceilings start at around 9 feet and there is about 2 feet of ceiling height above that with both beams and duct work. The building in which I was on the 55 floor had ceiling heights higher than 10 feet and drop ceilings but I didn't want to get mired in estimating details. The purpose of the exercise was to see if a New Yorker, ostensibly living at sea level, could spend the majority of his daily life above the 150 foot mark (as per the poll).

The calculations in the above post were rough estimates.

Comment: Live and work in NYC above 150 (Score 2) 172

by GLMDesigns (#49536189) Attached to: I spend most of my time ...
The average altitude in Manhattan where I work is 39 feet according to Google Maps. I'm on the 16th floor. (10 foot high ceilings plus an estimated 1 foot floor thickness plus a higher first floor leads to an estimate (15*(10+1)+10)=180.
9 hours ~ 210 feet

The average height where I live in Brooklyn is about 120 feet. I'm on the 4th floor (3*(8+1))=27
8 hours ~ 150 feet

2 hours subway - average height say 50 (below in some areas above ground, others at sea level - whatever)

5 hours average say 100 (split in different areas)

9*210=1800
8*150=1200
2*50=100
5*100=100
Total = 3200
Avg = 3200/24 ~ 133

However many people work and live on much higher floors. I used to work on the 55th floor. That would bring the avg way above 150

Avg altitude 85
Floor height 10+1 plus high first floor = (54*(10+1)+10)=604
9 hours * 675=6075.

Comment: Re:the endgame is ironic here (Score 1) 288

by GLMDesigns (#49526873) Attached to: Robot Workers' Real Draw: Reducing Dependence on Human Workers
A Republic is NOT simply a country without a hereditary monarch. Take a look at the Federalist Papers. Madison 10 is a famous example which gives distinctions between Republics and Democracies and explains why the framers of this country (USA) rejected Democracy in favor of a Republic.

Comment: Re:the endgame is ironic here (Score 1) 288

by GLMDesigns (#49522483) Attached to: Robot Workers' Real Draw: Reducing Dependence on Human Workers
OK, my lack of proof reading aside next time you hear people say that the electoral college / winner take all aspect of presidential elections is proof that the US isn't living up to its democratic ideals what will you do?

Or when you hear the following argument?

capitalism is not conducive to a democracy and
since we are a democratic country
we should get rid of capitalism.

Comment: Re:the endgame is ironic here (Score 1) 288

by GLMDesigns (#49521763) Attached to: Robot Workers' Real Draw: Reducing Dependence on Human Workers
I guess having a Masters in History and leaving while going for a PhD in History is proof of my lack of knowledge. Either that or I'm off my rockers (which may very well be the case).

There are many in this country who espouse equality of outcome and wealth who promote the idea that this country is failing by living up to its democratic ideals. They give examples of this all the time - example the winner-take-all aspect while voting for President. I have heard and had debates with people numerous times who say that:

- capitalism is not democratic and
- since we are a democratic country
-therefore we should get rid of capitalism.

As a result of these discussions I make certain that people realize that calling this country a "democracy" is in fact part-and-parcel of a straw-man argument.

Comment: Re:the endgame is ironic here (Score 1) 288

by GLMDesigns (#49521369) Attached to: Robot Workers' Real Draw: Reducing Dependence on Human Workers
I did not make up these terms. And neither did you. A democracy and a republic are not the same. When you, or someone else says we are a democracy, and then say that we are not living up to the ideals of a democracy because we apportion our votes on a winner take all basis in the presidential election then that person has created a straw-man argument.

I'm certain you've heard many people saying that we should do away with winner take all model as it is not aligned with democratic ideals.

Comment: Re:the endgame is ironic here (Score 1) 288

by GLMDesigns (#49521307) Attached to: Robot Workers' Real Draw: Reducing Dependence on Human Workers
No. Not in the least. Neither the US Constitution nor capitalism is equal to, nor promotes, anarchy.

In your model (democracy) you would say that the majority (50%+1) can do whatever they want. In the Constitutional Republic model the government has certain powers and no others.

Congress may regulate interstate trade. Can this clause be expanded to mean any trade? If you grow tomatoes/weed in your backyard and sell it to me, your neighbor, are we in violation of the interstate trade clause? I would say not. We may be in violation of local and/or state laws but that is a different concern.

Asking / Demanding that the government to abide by the restrictions placed upon them by the constitution does not equal anarchy.

Comment: Re:the endgame is ironic here (Score 1) 288

by GLMDesigns (#49520329) Attached to: Robot Workers' Real Draw: Reducing Dependence on Human Workers
There is a major difference between a Republic and a Democracy - namely the source of the power of the government. Does the power come from the Constitution or is it majority rule?

Yes a democracy can also have a constitution but that's not the meaning of the words. You may argue that Positive and Negative Rights are poor words to describe the concept - nonetheless those are the accepted terms. The same as here.

Going back to the original point - the constitution limits the authority of where and how the government may act. 1st A: Congress shall not .... 10th A: all powers not given to the Federal Gov't belongs to the states, etc...

This is an important point. Let's not use the word Democracy to describe the US. We have never been a Democracy. When we say that the US is a Democracy and then complain that the US doesn't live up to Democratic ideals then we have created a strawman argument (either purposefully or by mistake).

Comment: Re:the endgame is ironic here (Score 1) 288

by GLMDesigns (#49519835) Attached to: Robot Workers' Real Draw: Reducing Dependence on Human Workers
This is a Republic - not a Democracy. Corporations don't corrupt it. What corrupts it are politicians who use laws to help one entity over another. Whenever you increase the power of government (Do this, "Let's make a law to do that") you give one more area for the government to be "corrupted" as you say by corporations.

Don't give tax incentives. At all. The only way to do that is to have a flat tax. But no. That's not good enough. You need to go out of your way to try to force equality of outcome; you pervert the tax code and you wonder why others with more power and influence win out.

Get rid of tax incentives. Have a flat tax. Get rid of the corporations ability to push things in their favor. Also don't be so fu**ing greedy that people spend all their energy in tax avoidance.

Reducing government power by a flat tax and not tax incentives also reduces corporate power.

Comment: Re:the endgame is ironic here (Score 1) 288

by GLMDesigns (#49519567) Attached to: Robot Workers' Real Draw: Reducing Dependence on Human Workers
1. Capitalism is not anarchy.
2. Capitalism did not cause the inequality and the plight of the common man. That existed pre-capitalism.
3. Capitalism and unions are not antithetical. (Bring gov't into the mix and it often is.)
4. A government controlled economy is like having huge corporations with armies, police forces and courts with little or no recourse for whatever plight you may have.

Comment: Re:the endgame is ironic here (Score 1, Insightful) 288

by GLMDesigns (#49518815) Attached to: Robot Workers' Real Draw: Reducing Dependence on Human Workers
The goal of capitalism has nothing to do with removing human workers. The fact that sometimes efficiencies lead to fewer workers does not mean that is a goal. Cranes and pumps replaces having hundreds of people passing buckets of concrete or lugging steel beams around on their back. I think those efficiencies are good.

The problem will come because people still want to retire at 65 and live to 165; problems will come because people will keep breeding when there is no work and then expect others to pay for their offspring; problems will come because they expect to keep the same inefficiencies in place and will resist commonsense changes (Example closing Post Offices that no longer pay for themselves); problems will come because they expect the government to restrict competition because it means their job (or their company).

One can't proceed from the informal to the formal by formal means.

Working...