Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:This is not the problem (Score 1) 658

by HeckRuler (#48629769) Attached to: Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates

advocate education

This is an emotional appeal most people have fallen for.

No it isn't. Did you see the part where I countered that I paid off my own student debt in 3 years as opposed to your hypothetical 30 year mortgage?

How about the fact that we need more and more knowledge workers in the tertiary sector? You know, as opposed to factory workers, menial labor, and uneducated workers.

Or the part where I threw out the idea that there is an infinite amount of work for scientists and engineers (and hence there are jobs there).

That's not an emotional appeal. Don't be a dick and wave away my input. If you're going to open up with that sort of disrespect, I don't think I'm emotionally invested enough to read the rest of that.

Let's see....

With college education,

I also called out tech and trade schools, but I don't think the distinction is important here.

and they know what direction their business is moving in;

Anyone who tells you a business can't predict its need for technical people in 5 years and would be completely ineffective at planning for their workforce effectively has no idea what he's talking about.

Pft. You crazy? Are you selectively looking at giant corporations that make widgets that have a 30 year shelf-life? There are startups that genesis, rise, fall, and get resurrected in the span of 5 years. No, "the business" can't predict it's needs and available revenue 5 years into the future. Knowing what their needs and revenue RIGHT NOW is difficult for most of them.
The bigger the company is, the more momentum they probably have, but also the more moving parts. The smaller, the more volatile they're going to be. And it's not like the little guys have an entire division to do market analysis.

they can manage their human resources effectively by building skills in their employees.

That'd be lovely, but all too often we see them preferring to simply hire contractors who already have the skills. But hey, it DOES happen. I know a small firm that hired a smart english major and someone working towards their CS degree, and had the senior engineer train them up for years. Now, the english-major-now-experienced-programmer jumped ship for better pay and the college student can only put in 20hr/week due to classes, but it's a good idea in principle.

Yeah, I dunno dude. I'm not feeling like the rest of that rant is going to be worth the effort.

Comment: Re:This is not the problem (Score 1) 658

by HeckRuler (#48627337) Attached to: Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates

http://www.glassdoor.com/Salar...

Yeah, $60K for a registered nurse doesn't sound like much with a high cost of living area like DC. That sucks.

Still, with the right degree, it's not an endless amount of debt. I had mine paid off in 3 years. I hear it's more expensive now though. Advocate In-State yo.
Really any welfare reform is going to have to address the shift from primary->secondary->Tertiary economies. There's an infinite amount of work for scientists and engineers. You should advocate education. In all it's forms.

it will set precedent by giving valid reason to occasionally manipulate the system by handing out more welfare money, which is exactly what I want to never do

Yeah, I dunno dude, automation keeps taking away more jobs. When they come for the paper pushers, I'm not sure I'm going to say anything. If your stated goal is to cut welfare money, then I don't think you're going to get a lot of believers. It's like how Nixon was caught bringing in the system of HMOs because he wanted it to reduce care and funnel money in the right direction.

My simulations indicate

it is extremely nuanced in theory, and only simple in practice when you've ingested a ton of theory and come up with a rough diagram that doesn't violate that theory

Oh get off it dude. Any economic plan like this is tied to the hip of sociology. And sociology is the softest of sciences and everyone is just guessing. It might be better informed guesses than the average shmuck, and avoid some of the more obvious pitfalls, but I have little faith that any social plan will work as intended. And if you don't think economics have anything to do with human culture and social trends, then I have zero faith in any economic plan you have. Like you said, it's complex.

Still, it's probably a good plan. Might be better than the current welfare system we have. I doubt it will be any less complex, or at least won't become as complex in time. The part where everyone has it, and there's no issue with getting on or getting off of it is a good idea. It solves the problem with the one-rung-up people having it the hardest. And the stigma of taking a handout. Although some would argue there should be a stigma as an encouragement to get off the dole. The part where the social security admin has to directly process contracts between citizens and slum lords is probably a no-go.

Comment: Re:Supremes never said corps are people ... (Score 1) 580

by HeckRuler (#48625797) Attached to: Top Five Theaters Won't Show "The Interview" Sony Cancels Release

That's just a talking point of the left,

And Mitt Romney, the republican presidential candidate who the republican party voted for over Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and beat out Tim Pawlenty, Michelle Bachmann, Richard Perry, and that Cain guy.
He was the figure head and leading member of the republican party. It's not just a talking point of the left. It's something the republican leadership wanted to be true. If that rubs you the wrong way, you really ought to take another look at your political party.

Because of course corporations aren't people. That's crazy talk that will make you unelectable.

Comment: Re:This is not the problem (Score 1) 658

by HeckRuler (#48620309) Attached to: Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates

Imagine if all the homeless and unemployed had a fixed amount of income. Maybe $500-$600/mo

I worry about how much of that would simply be funneled to the casinos and liqueur marts. Maybe they are acceptable parasites. I imagine it would help some people. But some of the homeless are down'n'outers are there because they can't get their act together, and handing them money isn't going to necessarily help them do so.

Efforts to control what the money is spent on, like foodstamps, just makes a secondary market for exchanging funneymoney to real cash.

Directly controlling the supply of the resource doesn't work so well. At least here. Jesus, half of Hong Kong lives in public housing.

We will always find new use for laborers

What? If that was true, then there really wouldn't be any problems when factories had massive layoffs. And when they do eventually find work elsewhere, the extra competition drives down wages.

Universal vocational education--that is, college education--touted as a solution, is an exacerbating problem:

Except that there is work for people with real skills. Tech schools, trade schools, STEM degrees, and less so with philosophy or anthropology. We live in a different sort of soceity than the 70's. We don't need as much unskilled labor.

while a universal income always pays at 100%, and is thus immune to the fluctuations of economy.

Well.... I highly doubt that it wouldn't be a contentious issue and be tweaked up and down on a regular basis at the whims of the politicians and the voting blocs.

Comment: Re:you're all insane. (Score 1) 1050

by HeckRuler (#48601987) Attached to: Time To Remove 'Philosophical' Exemption From Vaccine Requirements?

you believe that a 'court ruling' has to do with truth?

Sure, it's not iron-clad, but there's a strong correlation with the truth. And they lost the appeal too. And typically when there are questionable legal shindigs, you don't have the uppity-ups double-down and lay their reputation on the line with such hard language like:

"This case, however, is not a close case. The overall weight of the evidence is overwhelmingly contrary to the petitioners’ causation theories."

They pussyfoot around the call for plausible deniability.

i sincerely have no animosity toward you (even though you are apparently now my first 'foe' . i hope you are at least enjoying the humor in this exchange).

joking aside though

I find it useful to keep track of the crazies. And this exchange hasn't been humorous. I've tried to give the anti-vaccers a legitimate chance to convince me that there was something to their argument and you've failed to present anything other than vague fear-mongering and the name of a bullshit documentary.

i understand why this is hard to see, and why i no doubt seem to you like an a-hole crackpot. it's ok

No, it's really not. This is a debate in an open forum. If you just accept that you look like an asshole crackpot and lack the ability or facts or reason to justify your position, then trying to participate in the conversation actively damages your sides claim. You're both stirring up controversy, and then damning your own side of the argument by failing to deliver.

but these are larger issues about information control and a fundamentally deceptive process.

Uh huh, "it's a conspiracy"? Is that what you want to say? "We can't trust any information we find out there and the whole system is decieving us. All the doctors and scientists must be in on it." If this isn't the groundwork for some epic baseless fear-mongering I don't know what is.

Listen, there probably is a conspiracy of some sort. All it takes is two guys with a plan they don't tell anyone. That's a conspiracy. And I'm positive that the pharmaceutical companies are getting paid WAY too much money. And a sizeable chunk of that is probably straight up corruption. But I don't think that they're poisoning kids with vaccines just to make a buck.

and im not going to convince you absent a "manifesto",

I was really looking more for examples of what these "big changes with dirty fingerprints" are, what the dangers of vaccines are, and what exactly you're trying to raise awareness of. Something concrete that would either be refutable, or give your argument some legs to stand on.

ive said my peace.

Geeze, are you 12? Come on, "I've said my piece". It's not that hard. You're doing this from a phone aren't you....
If this was your piece, then you've got nothing except shadows and boogieman.

Comment: Re:you're all insane. (Score 1) 1050

by HeckRuler (#48601299) Attached to: Time To Remove 'Philosophical' Exemption From Vaccine Requirements?

pft, hey, you should be a pastafarian. There's a book out there about it. Start there. After you've read it, you can come back to talk to me. Until then, imagine this whole thread was me trying to convert you to the religion and failing because I didn't actually say anything about it. loveysnugglepuppies, heckruler

But oh hey, SURE, let's go that extra mile to show you how you're wrong.

The Greater Good is a documentary film about the risks vs. benefits of vaccines ...

The three anecdotes around which the film is based on are those of:

Gabi Swank of Wichita, Kansas, who received an HPV vaccine and attributes a number of adverse reactions, including a seizure, to this experience,
Jordan King of Portland, Oregon, who regressed into autism following routine vaccination, and was one of the test cases for the autism omnibus proceedings and whose case was rejected by the Special Master, and
Victoria Grace Boyd Christener of Tulsa, Oklahoma, who died at the age of 5 months after receiving a vaccine.

Oh my god, it's an emotional gut-wrencher fluff piece about three specific individuals. First off, Gabi Swank's case derives from their Neurologist Dr. Lindholm claiming that her condition was caused by the vaccine. Hey, if he's got evidence that links the two, all the more power to him and getting that sort of thing published and the vaccine pulled. Shit happens yo, and we need to fix it. If it's real. But I can't find anything he's published about this. All I can find is a single quote and it's dropped like fart in the wind. Was this one stray comment from a doctor that the family picked up and ran with? Hey, the need to blame someone is strong. I get it. But choose your target with care.

Let's look at Jordan King of Portland and the autism omnibus proceedings:

On February 12, 2009, the court ruled in three test cases that the combination of the MMR vaccine and thiomersal-containing vaccines were not to blame for autism. Hastings concluded in his decision, "Unfortunately, the Cedillos have been misled by physicians who are guilty, in my view, of gross medical misjudgment."[17] The ruling was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals,[18] and upheld.

"This case, however, is not a close case. The overall weight of the evidence is overwhelmingly contrary to the petitioners’ causation theories."

And an infant died, which sucks. We've come a long way in lowering the infant mortality rate. There's still the edge cases.

Comment: Re:you're all insane. (Score 1) 1050

by HeckRuler (#48586157) Attached to: Time To Remove 'Philosophical' Exemption From Vaccine Requirements?

You're working REALLY HARD at NOT pointing out anything.
If it's hiding in plain sight, I imagine it'd be pretty easy to point out.

Yes, there's the possibility that you're just trolling for shits'n'giggles, but that's unlikely. There's the chance that you're literally paid to promote this sort of drama by... geeze, I don't even know. That's even less likely. I think you're most likely deluded and have been sucked in by propaganda and have a natural inclination to look for the scam. The exact sort of thing you're rallying against.

Now, commentators like Vermonter, operagost, and photon317 are arguing against this idea because it sets a bad precedence for government control, while they recognize that vaccines are important and good. You should really take a second look at the way they're presenting their point. You, on the other hand, seem to straddle the fence on the benefit of vaccines in general.

But come on, you're ranting about how people need to be informed, I'm asking you to inform me, and then you complain about having to "spoonfeed"? Even if you're not a troll, you're certainly not worth listening to, because you're not saying anything. Imagine you had to routinely pass by this group of really annoying people that had a bad reputation.
One of them runs up to you "HEY, LISTEN TO ME!"
And you uncharacteristically stop, turn to them, and replay "Yeah, what do you want?"
And then they run off saying "LOL, not a troll. Best regards"

Comment: Re:you're all insane. (Score 1) 1050

by HeckRuler (#48585865) Attached to: Time To Remove 'Philosophical' Exemption From Vaccine Requirements?

there are BIG changes that have dirty fingerprints all over them.

Please state them. What are these changes? What are the dirty fingerprints?

the more you learn about the FDA, USDA, big pharmaceutical companies, and their legal exemptions from prosecution, the money's involved.. etc, the more you realize how obvious it is that there are real dangers and risks being passed along to the unwitting public in the interests of $.

Please state, explicitly, what those dangers are.

awareness needs to be raised

OF WHAT? So far you're throwing around vague fearmongering. Come on, do the work, put in the effort, reasearch it a bit, cite those sources, and present your argument.

I have very little trust in bigPharma, and like most megacorps, they're probably swindling the masses for all they can. But just because, say, ConAgra is getting Tax breaks doesn't mean that corn is poison or we should stop eating food.

Comment: Re:Privacy means local storage (Score 1) 99

by HeckRuler (#48565391) Attached to: Civil Case Uses Fitbit Data To Disprove Insurance Fraud

Doesn't matter. Law enforcement can get that data with (or without) a warrant. Likewise, this data is more or less publicly available if there are ever any security breaches. And we all know that someone like FitBit would pay the utmost attention to critical information like.... how often you giggled your wrist.
Not that my home computer would be all that much secure. But it makes it a far less juicy target if there's just the one guy.

And those HIPPA laws only ever come into affect if you're cognizant of someone handing out your information. If someone out there simply knows all your details, you can't sue them, as they could have gotten it from anywhere. The problem with a retaliatory legal system is that if your rights get violated in secret and the effects linger or cause legal effects, then you're boned because you can't prove it happened. Not that I know anything better. But I don't have faith in the legal system to protect me from the legal system or people in the shadows.

Comment: Re:Someone should probably be beheaded (Score 1) 772

by HeckRuler (#48565279) Attached to: CIA Lied Over Brutal Interrogations

Relax, I'm really not offended. I find your schoolyard level whining to be, at most, adorable.

But that doesn't mean it's not a death threat:
"Someone should probably be beheaded. Someone like you."
See that? You're suggesting I should have my head cut off. But no, it's obviously not serious and obviously you're impotent in this regard so I really don't feel threatened. It's only a small step above "hey you, go DIAF".

Now.... in case you actually hang around... think about what you're doing here. You're posing a message that you believe would endanger your job. The term "fire-able offense" comes to mind. Is that the sort of grassroots defense that the would help absolve the CIA of their international crime? (And yes, the USA signed that covenant) Do you REALLY think that suggesting I be brutally murdered is a good way to point out the difference between torture and execution?

Comment: Re:Someone should probably be beheaded (Score 1) 772

by HeckRuler (#48559031) Attached to: CIA Lied Over Brutal Interrogations

Oh my goodness, an anonymous death-threat from someone defending CIA's torture on an online forum. That's adorable. I feel like I must be doing something right.

You know I always thought that the group of people that complained about death threats were overplaying it. I mean, who would actually send death-threats to someone complaining about torture? Or that lady complaining about how women are treated in video games, or the police brutality crowd. It really doesn't lend any weight to their argument. It makes them come off as... well... violent psychopaths with a REALLY bad grasp of irony. The exact sort of stereotype that they're being accused of being.

It's the sort of thing that makes me suspicious of some sort of casual agent provocateur. Or "trolling" if you prefer the newer term. But once you start with those sort of questions you might as well be jumping at shadows.

Damn shame he's a coward though. I'd like to hear how he thought that'd be a helpful comment.

Comment: Someone should probably be headed to prison. (Score 1) 772

by HeckRuler (#48558455) Attached to: CIA Lied Over Brutal Interrogations

Certain detainees were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs), which the Department of Justice determined at the time to be lawful and which were duly authorized by the Bush Administration. These techniques, which were last used by the CIA in December 2007, subsequently were prohibited by an Executive Order issued by President Obama when he took office in January 2009.

Damn straight that guy deserves a medal.
Wish he had kept up that sort of perspective.

CIA officers are rightly proud and honored to be part of an organization that is indispensable to our national security.

Don't be too sure about that bub.

Wishing without work is like fishing without bait. -- Frank Tyger

Working...