Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment Re:Typical Liberal Thinking (Score 1) 260

No, I'm saying the rich and powerful Liberals in government (e.g.. Nancy Pelosi) want you to have a respectable wage, have a loan on a house (preferable a student loan, too), and barely be able to feed your 2 or 3 children.

We are at the stage where two adults with full-time jobs and no kids can barely cover apartment rent and food


When a majority of the populace is surviving (but not quite rioting), the government may print money without hesitiation. Why? Because all the money you earn is spent servicing debt or providing basic needs -- not bidding up the price of durable goods.

This gives the government an incredible amount of power. The government may invent money out of nothing (work required: absolutely zero) and buy real things or pay real debts -- and that money still has value -- because 300 million Americans will value those dollars because they need to buy groceries for the week.

Say 300 million people in the US can't (or choose not to) pay $5 a gallon for milk. What happens? The dairy lowers their price. Because when 300 million people don't buy the dairy product because dairy priced themselves out of their range -- the dairy is better off selling the milk for $3.29 a gallon and thereby encouraging say 298 million people to buy it. At the point, the dairy doesn't care that there's 12 thousand people in Washington D.C. who would think nothing of paying $8 a half gallon.

So while the people in Washington have money enough to swim in -- the price of goods is not overly affected by all that made up money -- because most people in the US are not in the same position.

The Liberal infrastructure is more than happy to subsidize people. One the money is free. Two, it only pays for basic needs and keeps people from competing with their dollars in the Liberal elite sphere. Just enough for people to live, but not enough for them to grow.

And that's all you want, anyway. You don't want to get better, you just want to get by. And that's all they want you to want.

Because as long as you stay low and average, they can continue to make up dollars, build political and industrial empires and live incredibly -- all thanks to 300 million others wondering where all the jobs went.

Comment Re:Typical Liberal Thinking (Score 1) 260

Essentially, the rich and powerful in government want everyone else to stay poor -- because poor people can't spend money -- so this allows those rich and powerful to make-up money ("printing", "inflating") via the central bank without having the normal consequences of the printed money devaluing.

Normally if everyone has a lot more money -- prices will rise.

But if you can give yourself a lot more money (i.e. you are a central bank and can just decide: gee, today I think I'll print myself a few billion dollars) -- you can give yourself and your friends a bunch of money -- but prices won't rise (as fast or as much) if you make sure the majority of people never get any.

Case in point: the housing crises. They "solved" the problem by bailing out the insurance companies and the banks -- when they could have directly bailed out the homeowners for (perhaps) less money. The "solution" was making the government give their buddies in affordable housing and banks a bunch of made up cash.

Frankly, I think both "sides" are in on this. Democrats doing the free-money thing to all their buddies and then a switch back to Republicans to do the nasty correction (because you can't inflate forever). Republicans benefit with the Democrats because if you know a correction is coming (i.e. you're doing it) you can hedge your investments accordingly.

Comment Re:Typical Liberal Thinking (Score 1) 260

You are mostly correct about what they want, but that's not why they want it. Let me recap what they want from your list:

1. They will not stop until we (in the underclasses) are all reduced to a "living wage".
2. They want people out of work.
3. They want to subsidize meager existences.

The reason they want all of these horrible things, is not because they hate us, it's because they don't care about us and instead want to make themselves extremely rich. How can this be?

By encouraging an environment where people are out of work or can earn very little, they are insuring that the general populace has no significant buying power. And when the general populace has no buying power — those in government are able to print more money without immediate or significant inflationary consequence.

As long as the people in power are able to stand under one of the spickets of the created currency (banking, government contracts, alternative energy, maybe even some educational grants) they themselves get showered with what would normally be inflationary monies — but because the general majority of people don't have a good job — there is little immediate impact on prices because the majority of the populace don't have money to spend.

It's critical then for as many people as possible to either be out of work, or be in situations where they have little to no disposable income.

Comment Sci-Fi Reality (Score 4, Funny) 39

Thought of this as a science-fiction premise about 8 years ago. A world where one would literally grow a cell-phone -- completely biodegradable.

At this rate we'll have silly elf-leaves growing around our ears that allow us to communicate with each other -- having all the appearance of telepathy but all the boring reality of CDMA

Comment Re:OS/2 was great (Score 2) 262

The OS/2 UI was completely unusable.

Mouse movement stuttered and input regularly stalled as foreground and background processes took over. While you could occasionally get the same effect in Windows 95 or Windows NT – on OS/2 it was normal operation. Hair pulling frustrating.

Comment Re:Privacy (Score 5, Insightful) 279

Facebook doesn't have a search engine nor the defacto video sharing platform. But yes, Facebook is after the same things; Google had them already and was arbitrarily mesh-mashing them together -- very unsettling to the user.

Facebook is still a slow cooker, so the frogs don't notice.

Comment Re:Really? (Score 2) 528

I have a drone -- I don't know if his version works different, but the telemetry is relative to the drone's take-off. The drone does not have topographical data to determine actual altitude from ground obstacles!

Someone correct me if I'm wrong -- but all my tests with my drone flying over changes in terrain (say a hill a hundred feet high) changes the telemetry altitude by zero -- it's all relative to the home point.

Regardless the guy was a pretty good shot to take it down if they were just doing a fly-over, albeit since the drone was loitering first, he probably had a good slow start to work with.

IMO the land owner owns that airspace and the drone operator was flying over land he did not have permission to cross. If he was flying at 400 feet it would be debatable. Anything less, the drone-op is trespassing. Aside from the city ordinance against discharging firearms, the land owner should have every right to down the invasive craft.

This reversal of arrest here is just to set precedence so Amazon can trespass into everyone's property without paying for air right-of-way.

Comment Re:Existing Law (Score 1) 312

You must a lawyer or a legislator.

I imagine you could pass a law that says the State owns all the airspace from ankle height and give the police jurisdiction over drones, beach-balls, and soap bubbles. But then I don't need to imagine that since Oregon was trying to do just that. (Notice the use of a military drone in the article, when the legislation is actually trying to get the citizens to cede their rights to their own airspace.

So unless you have a political incentive to create and pass new legislation (to look busy), or you're feeling pressure from Amazon's lobby so they can fly shipping lanes into private citizens airspace without their permission, I'd say there's no reason for another law in this case.

Comment Re:Existing Law (Score 1) 312

Is it legal to climb your roof, and point a loaded handgun at your neighbour's head?

If you did this to a police officer he would probably shoot you. And I'm no legal expert but even your neighbor may be legally allowed to shoot you in this case.

You've described someone threatening assault with a deadly weapon. There are just a few laws dealing with that...

The two most common things in the Universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison