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


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:and people say unions are bad this is what happ (Score 1) 292

by Pfhorrest (#49489865) Attached to: IT Worker's Lawsuit Accuses Tata of Discrimination

Oh and I guess I forgot to tie it back in to the topic at hand: the average person only needed to work two hours a day to live a comfortable lifestyle, there'd be a lot more need for more people working the rest of the day to keep up productivity, labor would be more in demand, and more people would be employed for the few hours a day they'd need to get by, so there wouldn't really be the need to worry about either a right to employment or a right to welfare because work would be plentiful and easily cover one's own needs.

Comment: Re:and people say unions are bad this is what happ (Score 1) 292

by Pfhorrest (#49489833) Attached to: IT Worker's Lawsuit Accuses Tata of Discrimination

Or we could stop charging people to live. (read: stop allowing those who hold all the cards to charge others to live, or at least, stop enabling their ability to do so).

I make about the mean US wage and consume very comfortably, and if it weren't for rents I have to pay and money I have to save as quickly as possible if I ever want to stop paying those rents, I could continue consuming at that level for around a full time minimum wage, or working half days at the median wage, or two hours a day at my wage.

An average (mean) American like me has to work about four times as much as I need to just to pay for quite comfortable consumption, just because so few people control all the assets and the rest of us have to spend our income renting those assets and struggling (if we're lucky) to stop renting them.

It's just adding insult to injury that about half of Americans make half or less of that average. (The median is about half the mean).

Fix both of those problems (make mean and median income coincide, and get the assets like housing distributed so that the people who actually use them actually own them and don't have to borrow them from others at a fee) and we could all be living very comfortable lives of luxury very easily.

Comment: Re:Reason: for corporations, by corporations (Score 1) 489

by Pfhorrest (#49443215) Attached to: Reason: How To Break the Internet (in a Bad Way)

It's not so much that the value of their work is being taken by their employers (though it is some of that, but that's a consequence of unequal bargaining power due to what I'm about to say), it's more that so much of what they do make it taken by people who already have enough assets that they can afford to lend them out, as a fee for the poor people to use those rich people's assets. I mean rent, including rent on money, better known as interest.

If such a huge chunk of the income people do make didn't have to go toward servicing the assets they have to borrow from the people who have enough to lend them out, the income issue wouldn't be nearly such a big problem. I make twice the median income and consume quite comfortably, and if it weren't for rent and frantically saving for a big enough down payment so I can eventually stop renting and not pay even more in interest, I could consume at my comfortable level on an income about 2/3 of minimum wage.

As a bonus, if people weren't all one paycheck away from losing everything if they can't make one month's rent on time, they could tell shitty jobs to shove it up their ass, and actually get paid more for their work as well.

Comment: Re:These days... (Score 1) 892

All monetary transactions involve one party wanting to charge as much as possible and another wanting to pay as little as possible.

But most of them don't involve negotiation.

Instead the just involve the threat that if the offer/price isn't good enough, the applicant/shopper will go elsewhere.

What's backward in the labor market vs the grocery market (etc) is that in most cases the seller sets the price and the buyer takes it or leaves it, while in this case it's the buyer setting the price and the seller can take it and possibly cut costs or accept losses if they do, or else go out of business.

The labor market right now is like a grocery store where every customer walks in, picks what they want to buy, offers some money for it, and just walks out if the store wants more than that, so the stores for the most part just have to take whatever customers will offer for their goods (and if they can't afford to stay in business like that, tough shit for them eh?)

Comment: Re:There are limits to everything. (Score 2) 292

by Pfhorrest (#49400717) Attached to: EFF Fighting Automakers Over Whether You Own Your Car

Exactly. There are two orthogonal issues at hand here:

- Should there be laws regulating what kind of software can control vehicles on public roads?

- Should there by laws regulating whether the owner of a vehicle can look at and modify the software in his car?

It's perfectly analogous to existing hardware modifications. There's no laws saying you can't modify you car in any way you damn well please. There are laws about what kinds of cars can be operated on public roads. There's a possibility that some modifications you make (hardware or software) may make your car unsuitable to operate on public roads. But that doesn't mean you are preemptively prohibited from making those changes — just that you can be liable for operating such a modified vehicle on public roads.

Comment: Embarrassed (Score 2) 220

by Pfhorrest (#49398583) Attached to: How would you rate your programming skills?

I don't consider myself a programmer at all. The languages I know, I consider scripting languages, not programming languages, and I'm so uncomfortable with them that I try to avoid having to use them unless there's some problem I just can't solve without scripting something.

However I have held jobs with the title Software Engineer.

I feel like an embarrassment to real programmers everywhere.

Comment: Re:Hopefully logic and reason will win this time (Score 2) 166

by Pfhorrest (#49333467) Attached to: The X-Files To Return

Mulder and Scully didn't so much represent "supernatural" vs "logic, science, and reason" as they did paranormal vs mundane. A whole lot of the things Mulder thought were happening were things that could have had a naturalistic explanation that you could do science to understand if they actually were happening at all —they were just extraordinary things the likes of which would require extraordinary evidence to accept. Scully was rightly hesitant to accept such things without extraordinary evidence, but then, she also accepted supernatural things that are widely accepted and considered mundane, normal beliefs by society — her religious beliefs.

That was actually my favorite thing about the show and something I thought, around (I think it was) the season seven finale, they were going to shift to exploring: the paranormalization of religion. Looking at religious beliefs as just as weird and extraordinary as the aliens and monsters Mulder was always on about, and possibly actually connected to those very same things, but at the same time all of it still rationally, naturalistically, scientifically explainable. But of course that would never fly, especially on Fox, and they chickened out and ignored it aside from some vague allusions to Mulder being Alien Jesus or something in the terrible last two seasons.

Comment: Re:It happens with modern novels. (Score 1) 104

by Pfhorrest (#49238971) Attached to: Some of the Greatest Science Fiction Novels Are Fix-Ups

I don't know about any later intent of Tolkien to finally publish the Silmarillion alongside the LOTR, but the bulk of the material that was eventually published posthumously as "The Silmarillion" was written long before Tolkien ever scribbled down "in a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit", much less wrote a whole book around that phrase, much less the obligatory sequel that got so big it became a trilogy connected to his old mythopoeia about the Eldar and their history.

Also, the LOTR is internally structured into six "books". Each published volume contains two of them. I'm not sure how many volumes Tolkien intended it to be published as, but at first glance that would suggest six.

Theory is gray, but the golden tree of life is green. -- Goethe