Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Texas? (Score 1) 171

by JWW (#47500357) Attached to: California In the Running For Tesla Gigafactory

No state income tax for businesses.

Really, this plant is building components for the cars built in California. There is actually no relation from the manufacturing side to the selling side here.

This decision should be made puerilely on balance sheet issues that allow Tesla to make batteries and cars as cost effectively as they can.

Comment: Re: Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes (Score 1, Troll) 526

by JWW (#47465365) Attached to: Rand Paul and Silicon Valley's Shifting Political Climate

The idea that the largest most powerful entity to ever exist on this planet is only ever just trying to be benevolent and good, but is in danger because some people think it is too large is laughable. The corruption and regulatory capture you speak of are only possible BECAUSE the modern US government is an enormous leviathan.

The idea that libertarians would instantly reduce the government to nothing if they took power is laughable. Over 100 years if progressive bullshit have given us this opressive monster, it'll take more than just a few libertarians gaining power to turn our government into something reasonable again.

Comment: Re: Reform to how we fund elections is primary (Score 1) 117

by JWW (#47392959) Attached to: Lessig's Mayday PAC Scrambling To Cross Crowd Funding Finish Line

Thank you, that is a well thought out and reasoned answer. That's what I was looking for with my question to Lessig.

I can fully understand that term limits may be a "next thing" sort of activity for his PAC. But without an answer to my question, the answer could also be that he doesn't believe that they are important and will eventually be needed.

I really sincerely wanted to know his answer.

Comment: Re: How about (Score 5, Insightful) 385

It never ceases to amaze me how Progressives can so blithely condemn BIG corporations and their answer to solving the "BIG Corporation" problem is always to give more power to the largest, most powerful organization on the planet. Because large size causes corruption in companies, but it must only cause nobility in governments, right?

Comment: Re: If you take the bait (Score 5, Interesting) 117

by JWW (#47386187) Attached to: Lessig's Mayday PAC Scrambling To Cross Crowd Funding Finish Line

Exactly! I refuse it to support Mayday until they stand up for term limits. I asked a question about this in the "Ask Larry about Mayday" story. Then they used a "new and improved format" for his responses and dumped my +5 rated question.

Mayday, if they succeed will give us the same thing we have now, lifetime legislators. Their voucher system will end up a Massive advantage to incumbents.

Comment: Title is wrong (Score 5, Insightful) 42

The title to this article is wrong it should be:

Slashdot throws your questions in the fucking garbage and asks Lawrence Lessig a bunch of other stuff.

The trashing of any and all questions about term limits was unacceptable.

I was actually really looking forward to getting Larry's answers to OUR questions.

I couldn't be more disappointed.

Comment: Re:Didn't answer anyone's questions directly, did (Score 1) 42


Worst. Fucking. Slashdot. Q&A. Ever.

I got a +5 rated question about whether Mayday would support term limits on congress, and you didn't even fucking ask it and Larry sure as hell didn't say anything to indicate Mayday's stance on it.

Also, in the first video he sidestepped the answer about corporations making movies and writing books about candidates. Citizens United was a fucking LLC that made a political documentary, that's what Mayday is ostensibly fighting against. So don't fucking tell me that political documentaries would be unaffected.

And what the hell are vouchers going to fix when incumbents will end up receiving most of them anyway? Voters will just give their money to the person whose name they know. Its not going to stop old fossils from getting reelected to congress until they die.

This was a fucking promotional video created by Dice for Mayday PAC.

It sure as hell wasn't Lawrence Lessig answering my (or anyone else's) questions.

Comment: Advertising =/= scientific research (Score 1) 219

by langelgjm (#47349299) Attached to: Facebook's Emotion Experiment: Too Far, Or Social Network Norm?

It's different from A/B testing in that the experiment is explicitly designed to cause harm to half of the participants.

Presumably most A/B testing would be designed to figure out which choice performs better on a set of metrics. But going in, there is little evidence to point to one or the other, and the "harm" caused would simply be in user experience. In this experiment, the researchers had a prior theory about which choice would cause harm, and the harm is emotional and psychological.

All that aside, if this was purely internal research at Facebook, it would still likely be unethical but probably nothing out of the ordinary. The fundamental different is that this is being presented as scientific research. It's published in PNAS. It involve three co-authors from various universities. There are standards, both legal and ethical, that must be followed when engaging in scientific research, and the concern is that such standards were perhaps not followed.

Manipulation and even inducing harm may be widespread throughout the advertising industry, but that's advertising, not science.

Comment: It's called the Common Rule (Score 5, Interesting) 130

by langelgjm (#47344225) Attached to: In 2012, Facebook Altered Content To Tweak Readers' Emotions

It's called the Common Rule, although it generally only applies to federally funded research. There is some evidence that this study was in part federally funded. I think there are serious questions about whether a click-through agreement meets the standards of informed consent.

Although the study was approved by an institutional review board, I'm surprised, and the comment from the Princeton editor makes me wonder how well they understood the research design (or how clearly it was explained to them). This would never have gotten past my IRB.

Comment: Re:Some people may not afford to work less. (Score 1) 710

by langelgjm (#47314067) Attached to: Workaholism In America Is Hurting the Economy

I'm sure there are stats on this, but I was under the impression that most people working more than 40 hours a week were salaried and overtime exempt, so they don't see any extra income from the extra work.

I would be surprised if it were otherwise - employers loathe time-and-a-half overtime pay, and would consider it unaffordable to pay someone for all those extra hours.

You are an insult to my intelligence! I demand that you log off immediately.