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


Forgot your password?

Comment Genericism (Score 2) 79

"App" is a generic self-descriptive term meaning application going back to the 70s. "Store" is a generic term going back centuries. The two together are also generic and self-descriptive.

You can't have a self-descriptive genericism as a trademark and get away with it if someone has the balls to try to take it away from you.

Microsoft almost lost their trademark to Windows because of this (and handed a pile of money to Linspire to shut up about it).


Comment Re:My health is none of the government's business (Score 0, Troll) 490

If only that were true. The high deductible plan, and the little preventative coverage I have now is totally appropriate for me as 30 year old single male. My insurance offers me protection in the even of a real emergency or surprise onset of a condition and costs only about 1k per year.

Its perfect for me. Once Obummer care goes into effect it won't qualify. My costs are going to go way up. All in the name of giving to the undeserving.

Comment Re:It's all fun and games... (Score 1) 119

It is easy for the media to create an issue by making reports about printed guns. It would be more difficult for the media to report on 3D printers causing radical shifts in society. Right now 3D printing is a bit more than a gimmick but not really a technology ready for prime time. This fall the first home will be printed by a 3D printer. You can bet that the rush is on to find ways to print all consumer goods. Perhaps we will have 3D printed bicycles soon. The point being that we are seeing the end of human employment. I know that sounds strange to almost everyone but it is already happening. The stock market booms while workers are idle and paid less and less every year. These days a business may need no employees at all and it is quite possible that businesses soon will not even need an owner. It is going to be one heck of a ride.

Comment Re:Economy Needs To Transition (Score 2) 541

Its true to an extent. We do have things and have to bear the cost of supporting things that did not exist in the 1970s. Its comparable though. Cellular phones are a perfect example. I no longer maintain a land line phone, I know lots of people do but they don't need to do so.

Even if I chose to keep my cellular as an additional luxury over the land line, its still not a major drive on my balance sheet. If you really look at things that suck up most of the money, its property taxes, property values, fuel for heating, and recently ( last decade; and ignoring previous short term spikes ) fuel for transportation, and groceries.

Also somethings like internet and phones, should offer savings as well. In terms of added efficiencies.

So while its not perfectly cut and dry; its still clearly the case something has drastically reduced the real value of labor, and that is the place to attack the problem.

Comment Re:Economy Needs To Transition (Score 1) 541

Why do our safety needs to keep up. We have more safety net than at any prior time in history. Instead of treating the symptom maybe we should tackle the problem. Before 1970 very few households were two income. So somehow with ~40 hours of labor invested outside the home a comfortable standard of living could be maintained. Now days that otherwise comparable family in terms of living standard, education, etc, has to have two people working putting in a total of ~80+ hours outside the home; all while worker productivity has supposedly increased.

You will never fix this with higher minimum wages laws, that is just inflationary. The very fundamental problem is there is to much labor available. If you want to fix it you raise the cost, not dollar value, of labor. What we should do is adopt (preferable non gender biased) policies that strongly encourage single income households, and dare I say strongly discourage the import of finished goods except for nations that are vary similar to our own in terms of cost of labor.


Comment A Different Issue (Score 1) 343

President Lincoln faced an entirely different situation. The nature of the Civil War put the existence of the nation at great risk. Current conflicts pose almost no risk at all of a calamity great enough to destroy our nation. Next the telegraph wires were the only way to quickly command attacks from troops over a distance. It was also the only fast way to send information out of the north to southern agents. The northern forces would probably have been better off if all telegraphs were locked down until the war was over.
                              In the current world situation the US might be better to pull out all troops and embassies and tell the Arab region to rot. I wonder if the US would suffer at all if the nations in the mid east simply went into total war and chaos. As it stands now the expense of stopping this foolishness is a burden. As far as wars go this war has not taken many of our soldiers' lives. But if we assume that the ultimate totals might come to 20,000 dead American troops why should we be willing to allow this risk to climb? The entire mess very much resembles the problem in Vietnam. We could have won that war with great ease by going to maximum technology on the first day. We would have suffered no loss of troops at all and the financial component would have been trivial. Huge numbers of innocents would have been killed but at least it would all be over in a few minutes. So our kinder gentler mode of war cost the lives of 50,000 US soldiers and billions of dollars. The other part of the issue is that if we had crushed Vietnam with a full technology attack I seriously doubt that the Arab nations would ever have dared to offend us. Many nations perceive a lack of violent aggression to be a signal of weakness. Look at the threats made by N. Korea today. N.Korea threatens simply because they know we will not bomb them into oblivion.

Slashdot Top Deals

A conclusion is simply the place where someone got tired of thinking.