Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Two quick fixes to mass replicate (Score 1) 229

by American AC in Paris (#49777397) Attached to: Elon Musk Establishes a Grade School

Sure, plenty of kids and teens would not get educated, but they're probably not get anything now either. You can't make a student that won't learn educated anymore than you can make a morbidly obese person who refuses to eat right healthy. Sometimes society is better off with such people being allowed to make themselves into warnings for others.

Setting aside the sheer depravity of this argument, we have ample historical context for what happens when society cuts off the neediest. France, Haiti, Cuba, China, Russia, Algeria, Egypt, India, Scotland, The Phillipines, Mexico--just to name a few places where social and political inequality have driven massive, bloody revolts.

Wealth and political power calcify with the already wealthy and powerful. The middle and working classes slowly lose what wealth they have through attrition. Poverty becomes a virtually inescapable sink of destitution. Eventually, enough people end up having quite literally nothing to lose that you get vicious, deadly, destructive revolutions that take generations to recover from.

If you insist on taking a "pragmatic" view of not even bothering to -try- to improve the lives of the impoverished, try to at least understand the historical ramifications of what you're arguing for.

Comment: Re:Schizo (Score 2) 319

by American AC in Paris (#49726361) Attached to: Battle To Regulate Ridesharing Moves Through States

Then Uber comes along and creates a way to share a ride and the driver benefits a little bit as well.

Uber drivers aren't sharing a damned thing. They're charging for a service. That's called doing business, and if you want to do business, you need to follow certain rules, just like anything else in life. You can't just jump up and say "nuh-uh, this is sharing!" when you're really requiring people to pay you before you "share" anything.

If I open a gas station and call it a "fuel sharing service", does that mean that I get to bypass all those pesky rules and regulations for making sure my tanks don't leak into the ground? Or that I don't need to spend all that extraneous money to install safety cutoff switches (like anyone ever -uses- those, amirite?)

Comment: "Ridesharing" (Score 4, Insightful) 319

by American AC in Paris (#49725617) Attached to: Battle To Regulate Ridesharing Moves Through States

If y'all are still telling yourselves that services like Uber and Lyft are "rideshares", you're not paying attention, and haven't been for a long time.

Ridesharing suggests that people are sharing a ride from point A to point B--that is, they're both going that way, and thus are going to slug together to save gas/cost.

Uber and Lyft are effectively taxi services that uses an app instead of a dispatcher. The driver seeks out a fare, starts the timer, drives the fare to their destination, and then seeks out another fare.

The driver is not "sharing" anything, nor is the passenger. This is a taxi service.

Comment: Re:Interstate Water Sharing system (Score 1) 678

How about, instead of massive engineering projects, we just don't build cities where there aren't enough natural resources to sustain them?

Cities are, by their very definition, massive engineering projects that do not have sufficient natural resources to sustain themselves. Name one city that could function on a daily basis without regular imports from hundreds of miles away.

Comment: Re: We Remember things which Affect Us (Score 1) 301

by belmolis (#49508629) Attached to: Joseph Goebbels' Estate Sues Publisher Over Diary Excerpt Royalties
While the full extent of atrocities was not known until after the war, that massive atrocities focussed on Jews were being committed was in fact known to the allies by the end of 1942. For example, the Polish government in exile submitted a report on the extermination of the Jews to the United Nations in December, 1942.

Comment: Re:Long View (Score 3, Insightful) 482

No, the argument is that people will do what people do, which is increase their expenses as their income increases.

When they have to cut back, they won't, and instead end up on the six o'clock news whining that it's so unfair and that they should get to keep the house they can no longer afford. We've seen this before.

We're both saying the same thing. You trust the wisdom of the market over your own judgement. Your core argument is that you should stay where the market says you belong, because you really can't be trusted to know how to handle more than what the market says you deserve.

Comment: Re:Long View (Score 5, Insightful) 482

Your argument boils down to:

"if you get paid more than you're worth, you might someday find yourself in a situation where that well-paying job goes away, and you'll need to re-adjust your standard of living back down to where you 'should' be. Wouldn't it be better for you to simply keep making less money and remain at that lower standard of living in the first place? You'd avoid all kinds of uncertainty and potential upheaval!"

Compensation is whatever your employer wants to give you. If you find what this guy is doing to be grating and wrong, that says a lot more about you than it does him.

It's not so hard to lift yourself by your bootstraps once you're off the ground. -- Daniel B. Luten