Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Largely positive community (Score 1) 116

by danaris (#46707923) Attached to: How Riot's Social Scientists Fight <em>League of Legends</em> Trolling

I've been playing LoL for about a year now, on and off, and while I can hardly claim to be playing at a high level (I think I was Bronze II last time I qualified in ranked play), my experience has largely been a positive one. Sure, there are occasional assholes, and I've even had to mute one or two people, but most games I play don't have any serious negative attitudes, blue-streak profanity, or other jerkiness.

Personally, I always try to have a good attitude myself, since I know from experience that negativity can far too easily breed, especially when more than one person in a given group is acting that way, and cheerfulness can also be contagious.

I have high hopes for the introduction of the Team Builder matchmaking system, which should reduce or remove the contention for roles and positions that has far too often marred the pre-game lobby in League...once they can make sure its wait times are reasonable.

Dan Aris

Comment: Re:Way to drink the Kool-aid. (Score 1) 712

by danaris (#46305287) Attached to: Are Bankers Paid Too Much? Are Technology CEOs?

Because the rich are mostly the people who look short term. The poor in this country are looking to the long term and have a better handle on that. Right?

You can not see the fallacy there can you.

The outlook of the poor in this case is irrelevant. They have no power to actually change things. The rich do. It is the policies of the rich that are being implemented, which results in the poor suffering.

So...no, I don't see the fallacy, because none exists. You're reading things into my post that simply aren't there.

Dan Aris

Comment: Re:Way to drink the Kool-aid. (Score 1) 712

by danaris (#46305183) Attached to: Are Bankers Paid Too Much? Are Technology CEOs?

You really believe that the rich successful people are too stupid to understand what will and what will not make them money. Good luck with that thought process.

I believe that a significant majority of the rich in this country are heavily focused on short-term gains. Often at the expense of potentially much greater long-term gains. That's been a huge part of the problem in the economy for years now.

Dan Aris

Comment: Re:Way to drink the Kool-aid. (Score 1) 712

by danaris (#46304753) Attached to: Are Bankers Paid Too Much? Are Technology CEOs?

The problem here is that you think that every job should be able to support a family. It should not. If all jobs need to put out a living wage where will young people get there first jobs? How will they learn?

They will learnon minimum wage jobs. At $15/hr. What's wrong with that? Do you think there's some kind of deep injustice being committed when teenagers can make $15/hr? Now, most likely, they won't be working full-time—after all, teenagers have school to go to. So they won't be making as much overall as the 50-year-old working the same job because the company he worked at for 20 years laid him off, so that they could pay their CxOs more.

You are pricing students and first job people out of the market.

But this still doesn't make much sense. If the cheapest you can possibly hire someone is $15/hr, how can anyone be priced out of that? If you need a worker, you will hire one at that wage, whether they're a teenager or not.

Every study done on past minimum wage raises will show you the number of jobs it costs.

Yeah, and it's not nearly as many as the jobs it creates.

Any change—any shock to the system—will cause some short-term pain. Raising the minimum wage could very well cause a fair number of job losses at minimum-wage employers over the first few months after it goes into effect.

But do you know what the best, most clearly proven way to stimulate the economy—and thus create jobs—is? Put more purchasing power in the hands of the poorest.

They will spend that extra ~$300/week immediately, on basic necessities. That money will push up the local economy, and make it that much easier for other business owners in their area to hire another minimum-wage worker. This is basic economics.

The rest of your post sounds, to me, basically like, "Things have always been this way, so I don't see why they should ever be any other way" and "It doesn't matter if people are made poorer, teh evul liberals will give them all my hard-earned money so they can loaf around doing nothing." (To be fair, it sounds like you're exaggerating the latter for effect as much as I am.) SoI'm not even going to bother to respond to it.

I don't think you actually want to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. I just think that, as the title suggests, you've drunk the Kool-aid, and have come to believe the lie that increasing the minimum wage will make the poor worse off. And it is a lie; a despicable one that has been sold to the American people in order to prevent anyone from actually improving the lot of the poor. Because that would mean that the super-rich would not be able to take quite as large a slice of the pie as they can now.

The really, really stupid part is that for a significant percentage of the rich, there's a high probability that they would actually make more money if the poor were doing better. They might have a smaller piece of the pie, but the pie would be enough bigger that it wouldn't matter.

Dan Aris

Comment: Re:Way to drink the Kool-aid. (Score 1) 712

by danaris (#46304201) Attached to: Are Bankers Paid Too Much? Are Technology CEOs?

When you price people that are only worth $8/hr out of the market they do not suddenly just make more money. They loose their job to someone capable of working at $12 or $15/hr. Set the minimum wage to $30/hr. See what happens to the people who work at McDonalds. Most of them will be out of work.

I understand that you mean well and want people to be happy, but we have to think clearly before we put restrictions on a market based on what would make me feel like a better human being.

Yeah, except that no one I've ever heard is advocating setting the minimum wage to $30/hr. The proposal floated by the president says $10.10/hr. The most radical ones I've heard—the ones that would try to make the minimum wage a living wage, and in line, proportionally, with what the minimum wage was during the country's best times—say to push it up to around $18/hr.

And...I'm really not sure what you mean by "people capable of working at $12 or $15/hr". Do you really think that if the minimum wage was raised to a level that would allow anyone working full-time making it to actually feed, house, and clothe themselves, that suddenly the requirements of every minimum wage job would change to require a significantly higher level of service? That McDonald's and WalMart would suddenly start requiring their cashiers to also be their accountants?

I've heard a lot of arguments against the minimum wage, but this one is one of the more baffling to me, I must admit. It's possible that that's just because I don't quite understand what you're trying to say.

Dan Aris

Comment: Way to drink the Kool-aid. (Score 1) 712

by danaris (#46300327) Attached to: Are Bankers Paid Too Much? Are Technology CEOs?

You stated that like a minimum wage is good for the poor.

It is not.

Riiight, because it's great for the poor to be unable to find a job that makes more than $2/hour!

And it's really the super-wealthy who benefit when the people who work at the shops not they, but their maids and housekeepers get food and clothing at, start making enough that they can actually feed their families without government assistance

Dan Aris

Comment: Re:Ankh Morpork (Score 1) 888

by danaris (#46261661) Attached to: Star Trek Economics

I think that he doesn't actually exist.

But do you have any evidence that the fictional POTUFOP is completely democratically elected according to the true will of the people? Have you ever seen anyone on the show vote, discuss who they're going to vote for, etc? Do you see heated political debates in ten forward?

Glossing over the blatant and pointless ad hominem...

It's true, the show never really talks about politics. From my perspective, that's simply because that's not what the show is about. It can also be accounted for pretty much completely if we postulate that members of Starfleet—i.e., the serving military—are not allowed to participate in politics in any way. This is a relatively common restriction on the military (at least in other scifi I have read ^_~ ), and since 99%+ of the Federation members that appear on screen are serving members of Starfleet, it would pretty much preclude any significant role of politics in the show.

It's hard to overstate, however, the importance of the fact that it is Gene Roddenberry's Federation, since he was very clear that it was intended to be a truly Utopian society: no scarcity, no poverty, essentially no conflict within the crews of the ships we get to see, etc.

And, once again: Politics is simply never what the show was intended to be about. If you introduce politics, it's likely to change the show quite a bit. In fact, in the later seasons of Deep Space Nine (a few years after Roddenberry was dead), more politics and internal conflict did begin to crop up—and frankly, it made the shows more interesting. Utopia's nice to live in, but it makes lousy television.

In any case, to the best of my knowledge, there is no real canon about this. Given that absence, you are well within your rights to call into question the legitimacy of Jaresh-Inyo's election; however, I am just as well within my rights to refer to the stated intentions of the creator of the franchise to back up my claim that it is legitimate.

Dan Aris

Comment: Re:Ankh Morpork (Score 1) 888

by danaris (#46259491) Attached to: Star Trek Economics

Elected covers a wide range of things. Anglo-Saxon kings and Holy Roman emperors were elected.

Yeah, and you really think the President of Gene Roddenberry's United Federation of Planets is anything less than completely democratically elected according to the true will of the people?

Dan Aris

Comment: Re:Rule of acquisition 18 (Score 1) 888

by danaris (#46254475) Attached to: Star Trek Economics

I can't say I've seen every episode, but do they ever discuss politics, elections and the like? If so I don't recall it.

I don't believe they ever make it a major focus, but there are enough episodes where things are mentioned that you can draw a pretty clear picture.

For instance, in the fourth-season Deep Space Nine two-parter "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost", we actually see the Federation president for the first time, and learn that he is, indeed, elected.

Dan Aris

Comment: Re:Tradeoff in time. (Score 1) 2219

by danaris (#46187799) Attached to: Slashdot Tries Something New; Audience Responds!

Hi!

I'd personally give it until after BETA is sorted out. If Dice somehow miraculously sorts out the commenting problem, Slashdot stands a chance as sticking around.

If they don't, then you'll definitely see an exodus.

I disagree. If Mr. Perens is going to set this up intending it to be a haven for refugees from a broken Slashdot, it needs to be up and running before the beta site goes live, then crashes and burns.

Otherwise, far too many people will just disappear, rather than migrating over.

Dan Aris

Comment: Re:Business majors (drifting further off topic) (Score 1) 463

by danaris (#46173879) Attached to: Fire Destroys Iron Mountain Data Warehouse, Argentina's Bank Records Lost

The biggest mistake MBAs make is thinking that management/administration is a plug-in skill - you can move to a different business and manage it without knowing the ins and outs of the business.

No, actually, there's a bigger mistake that they make.

They think that management/administration is a skill that having an MBA gives you. A formula, that once you take those classes and have those letters after your name, you can apply to manage businesses, and no one else has it.

I know a few people who are actually really good at management and administration. None of them are MBAs, or studied it in any formal capacity—they just have a natural talent for it, which they have honed by years of experience. And at least some of them have shown that if you do really know what you're doing with management, you can apply it to a different business and do quite well, after an initial period of learning the ins and outs of the new business.

Dan Aris

Comment: Score: -1, Flamebait (Score 3, Informative) 359

by danaris (#45998967) Attached to: GPUs Dropping Dead In 2011 MacBook Pro Models

"Will they take ownership of the issue, or continue to ask customers to pay for an entire new logic board when just the GPU fails?"

Seriously?

Apple has a history of acknowledging and providing free fixes for issues of this magnitude, if they're really affecting a significant percentage of the population. I've been the beneficiary of such a fix in the past myself.

Hell, that's even mentioned in the linked article:

Mid–2011 iMacs with AMD Radeon HD 6970 graphics cards experienced similar failures and in August of 2013, Apple initiated a Graphics Card Replacement Program for the computers, replacing the graphics cards of affected iMacs at no cost.

So with the MacRumors article having only come out yesterday, it seems pretty aggressively snide to be suggesting that Apple's going to ignore the issue.

Dan Aris

Comment: Really? Blame Apple for getting copied? (Score 1) 511

by danaris (#45977061) Attached to: Apple Devices To Reach Parity With Windows PCs In 2014

I care what he thinks. Apple's existence is actually ruining other platforms and their diversity. Look at how much Unity sucks. That's Apple's fault. Windows 8? Apple!

Apple's existence is doing nothing of the kind.

The fact that other companies have no idea how to design things people want on their own, so all they can do is copy what Apple does, is what is harmful to the diversity of style in the market.

Just because you don't like Apple doesn't mean you get to blame them when everyone else rips off their designs.

Dan Aris

How much net work could a network work, if a network could net work?

Working...