Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:TV seized back the crown? Not likely. (Score 4, Insightful) 194 194

He's not really using his terms very well. He seems to be defining Netflix and Hulu as primarily television companies as opposed to internet companies. He says so at this point:

Netflix bills itself as a disrupter of television - except that it is television, paying Hollywood and the TV industry almost $2 billion a year in licensing and programming fees.

You can certainly make an argument for that. They are certainly a blend of the two. His argument is really much more about subscription services versus ad-supported services.

Comment: Re:You bet it won't (Score 0) 479 479

Be careful there. There is "evidence" for just about anything you can imagine. The evidence may be weak, or hearsay, or highly subject to interpretation, but that doesn't mean it isn't evidence. Simply stating there is none won't likely get you anywhere and just completely shuts down any potential dialogue. Showing how their evidence is actually your evidence, or that it is inconclusive, is going to be much more productive.

Comment: Re:Truck ? (Score 1) 837 837

> You and I do NOT benefit from private passenger vehicles other than our own.

That's not entirely true. If I drive to McDonalds but there's nobody working there then it's pretty useless. I suppose in theory they could take public transit, but that's spotty at best in many areas of the country. If I'm disabled to the point of being effectively unable to drive then I do not directly use roads at all, but am far more dependent on them. And lets not forget the joys of pizza delivery!

In general, there are lot of benefits to having a good infrastructure regardless of whether I use it directly. I'm not sure it's worth even trying to determine who uses it the most.

Comment: Re:Mixed reaction (Score 1) 328 328

You can make a case that when and where also matters, perhaps the speed I'm driving, any drugs I've taken lately, and even whether my girlfriend recently broke up with me, but I'd rather not share all that with my insurance company. I think the commercial / non-commercial split was just a simple way to split people between those who drive a lot and those who don't without giving lots of personal information to insurance companies.

Comment: Re:Mixed reaction (Score 1) 328 328

Uber and Lyft both provide full insurance coverage while someone is driving a fare for them. There is apparently a strange insurance gap if the driver is logged into their app looking to get a fare but not actually driving someone and is in an accident. If I'm understanding things right that's considered a commercial activity and not covered under personal insurance, but since they don't have an active fare it's not covered by Uber/Lyft either. Insurance companies are now offering policies that cover that gap. It's only a concern for the drivers though, as a passenger you're always covered by Uber/Lyft.

Comment: Re:Dumbest question I'll see all day. (Score 1) 435 435

I think we have reached the point where a display + camera may be just as good for seeing out and more structurally sound then windows. Take a look at the windowless plane interior shot from upthread:

There are lots of other reasons why we might still want windows, but I think we have superior options for just needing to see out.

Comment: I think it's more about having a 3D digital scan (Score 1) 63 63

There's a kickstarter right now doing full 3D scans of people and they seem to think that the primary market will be people who want a fully digital version of themselves for video games and other virtual environments. They do have various "3D portraits" available, but I get the impression they think their biggest business will be just providing the data files from the scans.

Comment: Re:Maybe in a different country (Score 1) 498 498

> There's a big difference between promoting gun safety at home, and putting it into law.

Tell that to Florida, who wrote a law forbidding doctors from even asking if people have guns at home, much less recommending that they keep them secure.

Comment: Re:Literally? (Score 1) 645 645

This is a tough one. You are using a somewhat narrow definition of "working for" to mean a defined financial arrangement between an employer and employee. That's not the only way to read that phrase. I can accurately say that I am working for my family, in the sense that my goal is to provide for them. You can certainly be "working for" a cause as well. If we accept that part of ISIS goal is driving a wedge between Muslims and the rest of us then Fox is definitely working for them. If someone is unintentionally furthering my nefarious plans to take over the world I might say something like "They are working for me. They just don't know it!" and then engage in some maniacal laughter.

Comment: Re:Close, but be careful (Score 1) 839 839

Why do you think consumption taxes are inherently progressive? It may be possible to make them that way, but I don't see how that is an inherent aspect.

The poor and middle classes generally have to spend the vast majority of their income and invest very little. All that is generally "consumption" the rich may seem to consume more, but as a percentage of their income it's far less than others. You can attempt to fix this by making food and other staples not subject to taxation and with luxury taxes, but that adds complications and you've pointed out the other dangers. I suspect any attempt to create progressive consumption taxes will be easily gamed. I'm open to the idea if it can be made to work, but taxing wealth has a big advantage of being relatively simple and much harder to game.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke