Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Tree of liberty (Score 1) 258

by ultranova (#48670647) Attached to: UK Man Arrested Over "Offensive" Tweet

Well, as they say, the tree of liberty needs to occasionally be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots. It appears that their tree is in need of some watering.

Neither the US nor the UK have tyrants. They have officials who were elected by popular vote. So unless you were planning immolating yourself in front of Buckingham Palace as a protest for your country's policies, the quote is not really appropriate.

Democracies reflect their citizens. You don't have to like that reflection, but if you don't, breaking the mirror only adds more disfigurements from the flying shards.

Comment: Re:Yet another clueless story on automation (Score 1) 621

by ultranova (#48670441) Attached to: What Happens To Society When Robots Replace Workers?

So what? We already made that choice to do so. Forcing companies to go with automation over employment doesn't make this situation any better.

We decided to not let people starve, and institutionalized that decision in the form of social security. However, setting up said social security in such a way that businesses suffer less costs from paying their employees insufficient wages than they would without social security in place - because automation is not free - creates perverse incentives. It rewards paying employees less and punishes any competitors who pay decent wages. That's a dumb and arguably evil thing to do.

Comment: Re:Start with copyright (Score 1) 104

by ArmoredDragon (#48670161) Attached to: How Laws Restricting Tech Actually Expose Us To Greater Harm

In other words, you're one of those "the past was always better than the present" people that another slashdot article mentioned.

Here's a little dose of reality: Until about 150 years ago, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government; the state governments could do whatever they wanted, including censorship, banning religions, etc. In fact, in the early days of the US, some states didn't allow ANYBODY to vote for the federal government. In New York for example, the state government decided by itself what representatives to send, what electors to send, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Comment: Wait - what? (Score 4, Insightful) 168

by Okian Warrior (#48670153) Attached to: Did North Korea Really Attack Sony?

The FBI points to reused code from previous attacks associated with North Korea [...]

Um... I hate to be the non-technical person that points this out, but...

The evidence that implicates NK on the previous attacks - is it the same evidence used to assign blame in the current attack?

Is this citing the conclusions based on the same evidence/situation from previous attacks to give legitimacy to the evidence in the current attack?

What a scam! Claim something on flimsy evidence, then cite those claims to give legitimacy to the flimsy evidence!

I wonder... can I do this sort of thing in the scientific literature? Hmmmm...

Comment: Re:Yellow Journalism (Score 1) 189

by ArmoredDragon (#48670141) Attached to: The World Is Not Falling Apart

Case in point:

http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

And he actually got modded up too. We don't need the media to feed us this shit, it's just average idiots that do it. This person probably isn't even aware that until about 150 years ago, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government; the state governments could do whatever they wanted, including censorship, banning religions, etc. In fact, in the early days of the US, some states didn't allow ANYBODY to vote for the federal government. In New York for example, the state government decided by itself what representatives to send, what electors to send, etc.

Comment: Re:Yellow Journalism (Score 1) 189

by ArmoredDragon (#48669651) Attached to: The World Is Not Falling Apart

It's not just news outlets, it's sensational people as well, and there are a LOT of them, especially on slashdot. For example, how many people routinely claim that the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer?

Well lets do a little then and now comparison:

Rich 100 years ago meant you owned an actual car, which was likely a piece of shit that poor people of today would even scoff at. Rich 50 years ago meant you owned more than one television, televisions which look like crap and had tiny screens compared to ones that poor people have access to in abundance today. Rich 30 years ago meant you had a car phone, which had crap coverage and no data, and perhaps a portable computer and perhaps a laser disc player. Middle class in the same era meant maybe owning a commodore vic-20.

If you were poor 100 years ago you could barely afford to eat enough calories to meet your minimum daily needs. Today poor people are often overweight, and I've seen homeless people carry a laptop to starbucks, and the money they get from begging usually goes towards booze or cigarettes (any actual food or clothing they need are usually given to them for free by food banks, and if they so choose, they can get free or close to free section 8 housing.)

In spite of all of this, its only politically correct to say that we're poorer now than we have ever been, mainly because a lot of people are incredibly dumb and can't tell the difference between money and wealth (money, by definition, does not make somebody rich or wealthy.)

Now, does some government spreadsheet say that we have more poor today than before? Yeah, probably, but mainly because the goalpost is constantly getting pushed up. Just to put things into perspective: If minimum wage ACTUALLY kept up with inflation from the day it was first introduced, then it would be only $4.15 an hour today.

Source:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...

Anyways my point is, it's not just news outlets that are at fault here. Most people, for whatever reason, hold the general belief that everything is always worse in the present day than it was in the past. Penn and Teller did an episode on this once:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Comment: That's pretty much the idea (Score 5, Insightful) 104

by Opportunist (#48667481) Attached to: How Laws Restricting Tech Actually Expose Us To Greater Harm

You're not supposed to control your appliance! If you would, you could not only fix them instead of replacing them, you could find new applications for them instead of buying another, specialized, one. And the maker could not at will end its life so you'd be buying the next one, bigger and better than your old 6 month old ancient garbage.

It's not a bug. It's a feature.

C for yourself.

Working...