Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re: I would *hope* he got paid a lot! (Score 0) 437

by stealth.c (#49108803) Attached to: How One Climate-Change Skeptic Has Profited From Corporate Interests
There is another reason to do so: The sincere belief that the alarmists are a threat to human survival. Their unconditional animosity against much-needed energy sources, if acted out in the political sphere to the degree that they wish, would doom billions to poverty and death. There is no doubt some risk in continuing to use fossil fuels the way we do, but governments are not who I would trust to quantify and hedge against that risk. They are much more likely to overreact or underreact for political reasons, costing the world countless lives. This is an unpopular opinion I'm sure. The technocratic idealists here who align with the alarmists are positive they know better how the world should run than those SUV-driving rubes out there, but such paternalistic hubris has gotten mankind into huge trouble before.

Comment: Isn't this just shooting the messenger? (Score 1) 437

by stealth.c (#49108689) Attached to: How One Climate-Change Skeptic Has Profited From Corporate Interests
Whenever scientists publish a controversial new cosmological theory there is no gossiping over who paid them. Because it doesn't matter. If their interpretation of the data is wrong, or if their model is wrong, all someone has to do is correct their work. Yet when it comes to "climate science" much ink is spilled disparaging the motives and character of anyone who challenges the orthodoxy. If he's wrong, show how he's wrong. I don't give a rat's behind who paid for what. The work either contributes to our understanding or it doesn't.

Comment: Re: Double Irish? TAX ALL FOREIGNERS!!! (Score 3, Insightful) 825

by stealth.c (#48954147) Attached to: Obama Proposes One-Time Tax On $2 Trillion US Companies Hold Overseas
How exactly is risking capital to produce products people willfully buy "leaching off society"? Which government service exactly are they skipping out on paying for? Why not send them a bill for that instead of stabbing in the dark at arbitrary sums? When did it become "greedy" to keep your own money, and "justice" to take someone else's?

Comment: Re: Double Irish (Score 2) 825

by stealth.c (#48953785) Attached to: Obama Proposes One-Time Tax On $2 Trillion US Companies Hold Overseas
Do you mean to say my taxes only pay for the desirable things my government does, and at the best possible price at all times? And that without this small group having a unilateral right to help themselves to other people's money -- so long as they honor bureaucratic protocols of course -- civilization would collapse into a Mad Max dytopia?

Comment: It's the same problem no matter who you blame. (Score 1) 200

by stealth.c (#48608877) Attached to: NASA's $349 Million Empty Tower
Whether you want to blame NASA bureaucrats for covering their asses or Congresscritters for their warped priorities, this failure can be explained the same way. Government and its agencies are total strangers to the economic incentives of profit and loss. The only profits and losses they directly experience are the rise and fall of their bureaucratic clout. As a result, success and failure are defined on completely different terms versus a private endeavor. For an operation like SpaceX, success is getting the customer into space with the greatest practical efficiency. For NASA, success is whatever curries favor with the people in Congress deciding next year's budget. Congressmen don't care about what goes into space or how. They care that federal money gets back to their clients at home. The bickering in this thread over whether to blame NASA leadership or Congress misses the larger point: Both are culpable because of the incentives they operate under. This is just the economics of nationalized space exploration taking its inevitable course.

Comment: I would say no (Score 1) 167

by stealth.c (#48513649) Attached to: Is a "Wikipedia For News" Feasible?
The first hurdle is the Western obsession with "objective" reporting. No such thing exists. But in the pursuit of the appearance of objectivity, you get slanted news constantly disguising itself as authoritative truth. Sometimes you get the same phenomenon on Wikipedia but at least there, interpretation of data is kept to a minimum. There is so much to report on, and so much information to curate, one has to employ a particular world view to decide what part of the story is important to tell. When it comes to news, there is no way to avoid ideological siloing. A single 'wikipedia of news" is not possible, but maybe several of them, each devoted to a certain way of understanding events, is possible.

Comment: Reminds me of the movie Brazil (Score 1) 169

by stealth.c (#48418775) Attached to: City of Toronto Files Court Injunction Against Uber
...and the crime of unlicensed duct work. People are taking money in exchange for giving car rides. Look, if the Toronto city government is willing to let any old moron DRIVE a car (and they are), I think those same people can be trusted to delegate to a hired driver without risking a carpocalypse.

Comment: Re:How did your senator vote? (Score 1) 445

by stealth.c (#48418675) Attached to: Republicans Block Latest Attempt At Curbing NSA Power
I'm afraid the Republican Party has always been the party of empire. Recall that the first Republican President waged the country's bloodiest war to prevent the central government's domain from shrinking. The war turned a federation of sovereign states into a compulsory chain of provinces. There is no "smaller government" party in the US, because Americans would never vote for one.

Comment: Then Bill Gates is Wrong (Score 1) 839

by stealth.c (#48160683) Attached to: Bill Gates: Piketty's Attack on Income Inequality Is Right
He was wrong on IP back in the 1970s and he's wrong on economics now. Piketty didn't actually contribute much to economic understanding with his book, but he did contribute a verbose defense of the same redistributism that has failed over and over again. Piketty is influenced greatly by Marx and Marxists, leaving out entirely the contributions of classical liberal economists like Bawerk, Menger and Mises who together have provided a deep understanding of the necessary process of capital accumulation, and private property rights. If one is to advance a theory that capital needs to be expropriated and redistributed by state action, one must be able to refute those theories, which Piketty simply fails to acknowledge.

You can not win the game, and you are not allowed to stop playing. -- The Third Law Of Thermodynamics