Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 25% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY25". ×

Submission + - With a heavy heart, I Disable Advertising 3

GerryGilmore writes: As someone with a 6-digit ID, and has been following /. for much longer, I've always wanted to support the site — ideally without coughing up real US$$. Hence, once the ads started, I was fine with it. And, once they started targeting based on recent purchases (yep, I just bought some Gibson Vintage guitar strings and — surprise — here's an ad for GV strings!), I was even OK with that. Recently (how recently I truly can't say, but call it within the last year) however, the number and intrusiveness of the ads has become untenable, so I just Disabled Advertising.

If you want to win my advertising heart back, a couple of suggestions:
No flash!! Too many reasons to list...
No sound!!! How does anyone allow this? Does no one realize how more-than-irritating it is for crap ad music/voiceover to start blasting out??
No javascript!! Look, I know, but — a fella can dream, right? Just like JS developers can dream that their scripts don't hang and lock up the browser. Just like FF developers can dream that FF doesn't consume every byte available. Just like....

Comment Re: At what point do we reevaluate the position (Score 2) 213

Given that most western socialized medical systems provide the same quality or superior medical care compared with the US while paying less tax dollars per citizen for that care than the US does I fail to see any reason not to socialize healthcare.

Do you really like paying more to subsidize an industry with a market that will bare literally anything the consumer can pay when you could enjoy a tax cut and provide every citizen with complete healthcare?

Last time I went to the hospital I had a broken humerus. It needed to be immobilized and morphine delivered immediately. Instead they left me in the waiting room and wandering around with it loose for four hours. The staff was mostly hanging out chatting during this time. When I finally got in I noted no shortage of empty emergency stalls and was given a quick x-ray and a sling for a rotor cuff injury (no relation to my broken bone) along with a shot of morphine and a script for pain pills.

Quality of care: I should sue them.
Time spent treating me: Maybe 15-20min
Cost to hospital for the tests: Lets go off the charts and call it $1.
Bill: $3,000 and counting, as you are double billed by the hospital for the service and again by each person you walked near.

Which part of this do you actually believe is consistent with the nonsense spouted by those opposed to socialized medicine who claim we have the "best care in the world" and that "waits will be outrageous?" The only place I've found decent speed of service (less than 40min combined waits) in the US is in the offices of surgeons and dentists looking to provide unneeded and overpriced care on the order of tens of thousands of dollars.

Comment Re: At what point do we reevaluate the position (Score 1) 213

I assume by that you mean eliminate all forms of employment freelance/contractual arrangements that are de facto employment? Or at least 100% employee owned with equal stakes private companies with total personal liability. Sure, I'd be down but I suspect there would be a lot of opposition.

Comment Re:False sense of security (Score 4, Insightful) 213

"Welcome to being an entrepreneur. You want time off? You earn enough to take some time. You want work/life balance? You earn it. Sometimes getting there requires working pretty hard for a while. You talk about work/life balance as if it is something you are entitled to have rather than something you earn. There's nothing wrong with working for someone else but very few people can earn a substantial income without a lot of time, effort and risk."

A freelancer is hardly a true entrepreneur. A freelancer is effectively an employee without benefits. Freelancers are capped by the market rates for staff plus the cost of providing them benefits. This is quite different than truly being an entrepreneur making the value of what he is producing. There is a huge gap between the market rate for labor and the market value of a laborers output... if there weren't nobody would hire employees or entrepreneurs. Actual entrepreneurs are exploiting this to make a profit on the work of others without adding value themselves (at least not beyond the value of any one of the workers) and they absolutely owe those workers benefits.

60% of business ventures fail and most of the ones that don't fail aren't profitable in the first five years. You better have one hell of a safety net to be taking that kind of roll of the dice. It does depend on the business of course but the only ones I know of that significantly improve that outlook are effectively just employment opportunities minus benefits.

Comment Doesn't make a difference (Score 1) 97

Who cares if someone's an asshole? They'll be naturally avoided anyway. Does the whole town have to know who's naughty and nice? Then it's about being a secret asshole and keeping up appearances. Assholes are assholes regardless of who is aware of their being an asshole anyway. They'll just make sure they slime their way out of consequences anyway. I know plenty of assholes at work and they're not anonymous. They don't care nobody helps them out, they have ways of preying on the weak and twisting arms to get their way anyway (there are still weak/gullible in small towns too). They don't give the slightest fuck.

Comment Re:Question for Bernie Sanders (Score 1) 213

The supreme court abolished the Consitution long ago. The problem with the Constitution is that people are far too willing to accept illegal and unconstitutional laws/rulings if the result is an end they approve of rather than demanding the Constitution be obeyed and holding out for their goal to come about via an amendment or never. Amendments are hard, that was by design.

Our Constitutional government is long gone. The supreme has made many rulings that blatantly contradict what the document says. Congress passes laws every day that do the same. Not one person advocating gun control is actually trying to amend the second amendment to do so legally. Nor are those who want to deny the right to privacy (mostly for abortion) trying to amend the portion indicating that not all rights are enumerated in the Constitution. Those who want to support waterboarding aren't trying to amend the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Those who support publicly available criminal records and sex offender lists aren't doing so either.

We have such a twisted interpretation of the Constitution that nobody even questions the legitimacy of Congress enacting a war without a Congressional Declaration of War. When the Constitution explicitly spells out the process and requirements for a congressional vote to go to war it is blatantly unconstitutional for the congress or our government to go to war without following that process and meeting those requirements. The intent is so clear that the foremost legal expert in the country could stand in front of a group of random citizens and say otherwise and every one of them would know he was full of shit. The Constitution is written in plain if slightly dated English, not the legalize of today. Anyone can read and understand it.

Tell me that any judge would accept the same sort of dodgy justifications, workarounds, and artificial constructs that supreme court justices have accepted to get around the constitution from a poor private citizen with a trust document and a tax debt and I might reconsider. For some reason congress, the president, and our judges don't get charged with treason when they violate the Constitution. If our US Attorney isn't hard at work on this what is he/she doing? Oh right, prosecuting hundreds of thousands of cases wherein people have violated laws which are outside the Constitutional authority of the federal government in the first place.

The people had two checks against their representatives and the founders gave government no authority to override them. The people reserved force of arms and the final say in whether any man/woman/child could be imprisoned regardless of law or circumstance. Both of them are long since dust.

Comment Re: At what point do we reevaluate the position (Score 1) 213

"Considering the upper middle class is growing rapidly, this does not appear to be the case."

This is an illusion. The growth is the H1B workers which are well within the top 20% of the workforce. There is absolutely no benefit for the people citizens of today, not when there is no real shortage of talent already here.

This is nothing against the H1B workers themselves they just aren't beneficial domestically. Then again, neither are the consulting gig people. If you don't have to own the giant turd you are building after the fact it will, without exception, be a giant turd. On second thought, polishing/systematically replacing that turd over the next few years does at least create a temporary need for additional labor.

Comment Re:At what point do we reevaluate the position (Score 1) 213

Technology is not merely reducing the number of jobs stupid people can do. There isn't much savings for a company in that.

Technology is actually using very sophisticated automations to eliminate high paying jobs, amusingly, the first and easiest place to do this is in the technology sector. We do this not all at once but chisel away a piece at a time, eliminating time consuming pieces of jobs which allows for staff reductions.

Eventually either people automate themselves out of the job entirely or automations experts are brought in to do it and they are replaced by much less expensive monkeys who are only smart enough to run the already automated system.

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce