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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Uber is as safe as taxis (Score 1) 471

As we know Libertardism is known for its followers unbiased and open approach to reality and civilized discussion. We also know that people who funded it are known for their honesty and openness too as they openly live by "me first, rest fuck off' and die" principle which is as open and honest as it can possibly get.

As it happens, there is no Charles Koch exception to argument evaluation in logic and rhetoric. (See logic.) To argue otherwise is to commit the ad hominem fallacy, and fallacies in general are not acceptable argumentation. (See fallacy.) In fact, I think I could make a good case that you've committed the Poisoning the Well fallacy. (See Poisoning the Well.)

If the Cato Institute has made an error in either their premises or their warrants then it should be relatively easy for you to argue in favor of your beliefs.


p.s. Do you see any irony in your complaining about The Cato Institute's "unbiased...approach to...civilized discussion?"

Comment Re:Digitial Economy (Score 1, Informative) 102

Or deluded and capitalist and claiming it's possible for companies to grow by 10% every year forever ...

You're laboring under a number of misconceptions. What those misconceptions are depends strongly by what you meant when you said the above. For example, I don't believe anyone has claimed that it's possible for companies to grow 10% every year forever. Let's assume, however, that you merely meant that proponents of capitalism claim that growth is better with capitalism than it is with socialism, and that the rest was hyperbole. (I compare it to socialism because that appears to be what you were responding to in 0123456's post.) If so, then capitalism's proponents are right to make that claim. Heritage Foundation makes an annual survey of the economic freedom of the various nations. Insofar as you can claim that economic freedom equates to capitalism (not too great a stretch, I hope), then following the link will show their finding that increasing capitalism correlates with increasing GDP per capita, with increasing economic growth, with reduced poverty intensity, with greater health, with greater education, and with a better environment.

As a lesser matter, I should mention that you're equating companies with capitalism, whereas capitalism can exist in the complete absence of companies. Wikipedia has this to say about capitalism: "Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit. Central characteristics of capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labour and, in some situations, competitive markets. In a capitalist economy, the parties to a transaction typically determine the prices at which they exchange assets, goods, and services." Notice the complete lack of the word "companies" or with its concept. I'm not saying that capitalisms can't have companies. Rather I'm saying that it's an independent concept. In fact, if you consider a continuum from economic freedom to a command economy, then companies are a step in the direction of command economies. Companies are a way to limit the risks taken by one party to a transaction (typically the seller) by increasing the risk to society. This is frequently called "socializing the risks," and for good reason.

or that somehow giving tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations makes everyone else's lives better ...

It depends strongly on the tax break. If you tax profits at the rate of 91%, then you eliminate many more business opportunities than you would if you taxed them at 27%. To give you an example, suppose that a particular opportunity costs $100,000 to risk. Perhaps a new pick-and-place machine for a surface mount printed circuit board line. Suppose further that the opportunity has a 50% chance of profiting $500,000 if it's successful, and a 50% chance of losing the entire $100,000. At 91% tax you have a 50% chance of losing $100,000, and a 50% chance of gaining (1-0.91)$500,000 = $45,000, for an expected loss of $5,000. You shouldn't take the risk. However, at 27% tax you have a 50% chance of losing $100,000, and a 50% chance of gaining (1-0.27)$500,000 = $365,000, for an expected gain of $315,000. Any risk with an expected loss shouldn't be undertaken, which means society doesn't benefit from the undertaking of that risk, offset somewhat by the possibility of the loss of the pick-and-place machine in a losing venture.

On the other hand, any number of other tax breaks, such as giving a guaranteed loan to someone that can't otherwise convince venture capitalists to invest, you would be right about.

Sorry, but in its current incarnation capitalism relies on just as much delusional fantasy and bullshit as communism ever did.

I'm not sure why we've changed the topic from socialism to communism, but...economic freedom seems to have a number of tangible, favorable outcomes as shown in Heritage Foundation's survey.

And it might surprise you that many countries have struck a nice balance between having private industry and pretending like you can have a functioning society if nobody pays for it.

Very few people advocate a pure capitalism. In fact, it would surprise me greatly if 0123456 weren't in favor of socializing national defense. On the other hand, it appears as though most countries could make drastic movements in the direction of economic freedom and still have a nice balance as measured by increasing GDP per capita, economic growth, reduced poverty, health, education, and environment.

But keep making it into your idiotic partisan position, and keep on demonstrating you're an idiot.

I understand that ridiculing your discussion partner and calling him names is an excellent technique to demonstrate your superiority, but I think I'll refrain for the present.



Comment Licensing agreement (Score 3, Interesting) 163

"If Windows 7 or 8 is installed, the BIOS of the laptop checks 'C:\Windows\system32\autochk.exe' to see if it's a Microsoft file or a Lenovo-signed one, then overwrites the file with its own.

Since this doesn't require my agreement, then does that mean I'm unrestricted as to what I can do with it? Namely, reverse compiling, distributing, etc?


Comment Re:Reddit, like Digg, is eating itself... (Score 2) 474

It's pretty rare for factually-incorrect information to get upvoted or factually-correct information buried...I get very frustrated watching completely factual information get downvoted or subreddits banned because it doesn't fit users' or moderators' view of the world.

I never down-mod factually incorrect information because it can still be interesting or informative or funny. It can still spawn discussion. Or, hell, I could be wrong. Maybe some things that I'm absolutely certain can't be facts actually are. I'm a staunch conservative, and I have yet to down-mod any liberal post on Slashdot. I'm a Christian, and I have yet to down-mod any atheist or other-religious post here, either. The thing is, I only get five moderator points when I get them, and the moderation instructions say to concentrate on up-modding, so I do. My memory isn't perfect, so it's possible I've never down-modded anything at all, but if I were to down-mod something it would only be first-post-, or penis-bird-type posts. I know how disappointed I get when I post one of my strongly-held opinions and I get down-modded troll. A strongly held opinion cannot be a troll. By definition. The only step I'll take in that direction is to meta-moderate as underrated posts that I deem to have been buried by group think. And I promise I'll try to do that as often with posts I disagree with as I do with posts I agree with. Knowing me as well as I do, I suspect I'll fail in achieving that, but at least I'm trying.


Comment Re:At the cost of the tax payer (Score 2, Informative) 226

The economists love to say that trade is great for everyone.

You are correct. Economists do love to say that trade is great for everyone. The reason that economists love to say that trade is great for everyone is because it's true, and economists love to say true things. (Exception: exporters who face stiffer competition from foreign suppliers.)

But they assume that all parties have an equal amount of advantages and disadvantages.

What! Nothing could be further from the truth! Economists would never say that because they love avoiding saying untrue things.

There is this illusion of comparative advantage.

Illusion! It's a mathematical near-certainty. The only way that two countries could have no comparative advantage would be if the productivity of First Country divided by the productivity of Second Country were the same ratio for every product that either of them makes.

But at least with the US we are making trade deals for the sole purpose of businesses lowering their costs to boost profits and make their shareholders richer and their CEOs even richer; while we little people lose opportunities and jobs and stagnant wages.

We do make trade deals so that businesses can lower their costs, but that's not the sole purpose. It's also so that consumers can buy things at lower prices. People do lose opportunities and jobs when they are employed at making things that can be made more cheaply elsewhere, but they gain jobs when they are employed at making things that can be made more cheaply here. The neat thing about comparative advantage is that the latter must exist.

Protectionism? Absolutely not!

Protectionism? Ubiquitous! Exactly how much can be found here

What we need is a business environment like Germany's where government, business and labor all work together for society's overall prosperity.

What you need to do is give me all of your money and all of your possessions and, for a nominal fee that I'll determine at my sole discretion, I'll make sure that it's used to best effect.

In the US, labor needs much more power (unions) and business needs to be taken down a few notches.

What we need is for the government to have far less power. If they had, there there would be no incentives for business to lobby them for exclusive advantages for themselves. What we need is for labor to have exactly as much power as businesses. If businesses can't have a monopoly on goods, then labor shouldn't have a monopoly on services.


Comment Re:Six Weeks (Score 3, Insightful) 82

We've, in my opinion, moved into an era where knowledge and research that has no practical application equates to something that's not worth all that much. Capitalism seems to be the dominant (economic) system that drives modern research and I hate it. If there is no concrete monetary profit from a venture then good luck pursuing an avenue of research that does not yield a "return on investment".

I understand your concern, but I think you're looking at things wrongly. I'm having a little trouble putting it into words, but maybe it'll help if you look at things this way. Imagine a world in which everyone was doing research that had no immediate benefits, or any expected return for the next two or three score years. You'd starve to death. People eat immediate food, and go to immediate doctors, and live in immediate houses, and wear immediate clothes. The inescapable conclusion is that only a fraction of people can be employed in that kind of research. The way that we, as an economic system, reach an equilibrium on the amount of that kind of research is by not over-stimulating it by excessive investment in it.

Or if you can't sympathize with that explanation, then let me ask this question. If avenues of research with no return are so important, then why are you demanding a high salary and large raises?


Comment Re:Not unusual. (Score 1) 308

So one can't ever delete videos? How about text files? Or pictures that I painted in MS Paint for fun but having no intrinsic value? Or icons/user pictures that I haven't used in 10 years and will not use again?

You can delete videos. And text files. And pictures you painted in MS Paint. And pictures that you haven't used in 10 years. Unless you know of a lawsuit or an investigation, or can reasonably be expected to know one is coming. If that happens then you have to be really, really careful. You have to be careful because if the plaintiff or prosecutor can establish to the jury's or court's satisfaction that you did it for the purpose of obstructing justice, then you can face serious consequences. It should go without saying, but if you don't delete anything, then it's less likely that the plaintiff or prosecutor can establish that. They could still establish that, because it's possible to establish false claims in court, but it's less likely. If you do delete something in the face of a lawsuit or investigation then you better be sure that the prosecutor or plaintiff can't establish that you did it to obstruct justice. If you do delete something that wasn't for the purpose of obstructing justice then the plaintiff or prosecutor could still establish it to the jury's or court's satisfaction. That's because it's possible to establish false claims in court. But it's less likely.

The safest thing is not to be involved in investigations or lawsuits. The next-safest thing is not to reasonably expect one is coming. The next-safest thing is not to delete things. The next-safest thing it not to delete things for the purpose of obstructing justice. The next-safest thing is not to delete things probably for the purpose of obstructing justice. The next safest thing is not to live in a world with other people in it.


Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

Comment Re:Not unusual. (Score 3, Informative) 308

Browser history is temporary data by design, it is not a "record". Even continuing to browse will erase it over time.

It is a record. If you know of a lawsuit or investigation, or can reasonably be expected to know one is coming, you have to retain those records. If you delete them for the purpose of obstructing the lawsuit or investigation, and if the plaintiff or prosecutor can establish that to the jury's or court's satisfaction, then you can be convicted of a crime.


Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. I advise you not to treat this as legal advice. That, too, was not legal advice.

Comment Not unusual. (Score 4, Informative) 308

one aspect of the actions he took should probably concern anyone who has crossed paths online or in real life with subject of law enforcement scrutiny, and subsequently cleared their browser history.

Once you learn of an investigation or a law suit, or can be reasonably expected to know one is coming, it's incumbent upon you to save all records. This is well established, and has been in existence for quite some time. It's not something new with browser history. With browser history, though, it's going to be slightly tougher to prove that it was for the purpose of obstructing the investigation, rather than his normal course of activity. His erasure of videos will help law enforcement prove that, though.


Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Neither is this disclaimer. Neither is the disclaimer of the disclaimer ad nauseam.

It's not hard to admit errors that are [only] cosmetically wrong. -- J.K. Galbraith