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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Sad and sick (Score 1) 200

Perhaps I was unclear. It's a bullshit argument that eventual technological innovation can reduce present day harms. I mean, that should be self evident. The idea that some CEO is thinking of some future innovation curtailing his monopoly power, and deciding not to do something heinous lest it speed the day, is ludicrous. CEOs don't care about five years from now. Are we at least clear what we are arguing about now?

Comment Re: a pattern lately (Score 1) 319

That's what I was thinking and yeah, it would likely totally demolish Yellowstone, which is a shame but as you say, much better than losing the continent. The nightmare scenario would be that it doesn't stop the eruption, leading to radioactive volcanic ash blanketing most of North America.

Comment Re:Republican Corruption, what a surprise? (Score 1) 200

History teaches us that people do change. There are two modes of human behavior, the feast mode and the famine mode. Through most of our time on this planet, we have not been violent dickheads. We're stuck in the famine mode, the scarcity mindset. But as technological change has increased material wealth, we are gradually unlearning our counterproductive and harmful famine mindset. You can tell from all the social progress we are making. Society is becoming less violent overall. Crime is going down. Warfare is no longer seen as a noble endeavor. Torture is seen as the abomination it is, rather than a fun thing to take the kids to watch. Child abuse is declining. Honestly, things are looking pretty bright and I see our future as one of peace and cooperation on a scale never before seen.

Comment Re:Sad and sick (Score 1) 200

AT&T was highly regulated, reducing some of their monopoly powers. I never claimed technological change doesn't happen, or that it does not, in the long run, destroy natural monopolies. It does, but that's not the point. The point is that while they exist, they cause harm, and that harm can be reduced by wither public ownership, or regulation. I prefer the idea of running natural monopolies as cooperatives, but that's just me.

I was of course engaging in hyperbole regarding my debates with libertarians on this issue. It can't really have been more than a dozen times. My point is, I've never heard a compelling argument that natural monopolies are a safe thing to let run unregulated as a for-profit entity. The profit motive coupled with the power of a monopoly always leads to abuse.

Comment Re:Republican Corruption, what a surprise? (Score 1) 200

Well, okay then. Sounds like the only real difference we might have is that I tend to identify as "anarchist" while you've chosen to go with "libertarian," which is really nothing more than rebranded anarcho-capitalism (at least here in America. In other countries, there is no real difference and libertarianism covers the full spectrum of anarchist thought.) I like the term anarchism because it gets to the heart of the matter: an archos, or "against hierarchy." In America, libertarianism as been co-opted by people like the Koch brothers, who firmly believe in hierarchy.

Slashdot Top Deals

We gave you an atomic bomb, what do you want, mermaids? -- I. I. Rabi to the Atomic Energy Commission