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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:We've been here before many times. (Score 0) 182

Didn't we already do this? A new nation that subverts the existing structures, even has a system built-in for making sure we don't have stagnant hierarchical power structures? I believe it was called "the United States of America."

Don't kid yourself into thinking you're "special" and "not like those guys." Please learn from previous generations and previous attempts. "Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it" is not just a clever bon mot to be dismissed.

Yes, and we did a fabulous job of corrupting it by turning over the power to the few so we could have more leisure time. And now when talk of "Utopianism" comes up the ignorant think it is the same as Libertarianism, and they go on blissfully thinking that there is no way their socialist welfare states could ever turn against them. Worse, they think that what works on the scale of Sweden can work on the scale of the United States. Maybe on a given state.

Comment Re:no thanks (Score 1) 182

I agree that this sounds like a ridiculous experiment. Of course, it can work while shielded within another system guaranteeing the security of those within as they ponder their quantified selves and hope the power doesn't go out or the network down, leaving them without a form of payment, data to tell them to eat more or less of a certain food, or a machine to make stuff for them. On a grand scale, however, it sounds like a voluntary prison. I feel the same way about your universal welfare state. For the record, the problem with the United States' form of government is that we failed to run it as intended. We the people - the many - turned over power to the few, and they abused the hell out of it. At least Walmart can't force me to buy their products. Well, not yet.

Comment Re: Really? (Score 1) 767

Wall Street operates on two principles: 1. Regulation defines what the government doesn't tell them they can't do; and, 2. The greed of those who invest in the market and the blind eye they turn when handed unrealistic expectations.

It is no fault of capitalistic ideals that it becomes a tool for evil.

Comment Re:Make it easier (Score 1) 562

Korean somewhat splits the difference between the two, providing an alphabet that can substitute for the Chinese characters in Sino-Korean, as well being the way to write pure Korean. It also helps in that it provides a phonetic fallback when learning Chinese characters.

Comment Re:Idiocracy (Score 3, Insightful) 628

People vastly overreact to the threat of peanuts. My little sister is extremely allergic to peanuts and has been since she was a child. So allergic that a peanut touching her skin raises a welt. She grew up in a house where 6 other people ate peanut butter all the time like it was liquid crack. The real stuff, too - Teddy - not that Jiff or Skippy hydrogenated junk. She went to public school. She lives a normal life, but with an Epipen in her purse. As with damn near everything else a vocal minority have created a huge scare over something that while potentially deadly is easily avoidable.

Comment Re:Bias (Score 1) 447

Will someone declare they have the unalienable right to Must See TV?.

Please correct me if I am mistaken, but is there not legislation in the U.S. that makes it a right to freely receive television signals that are broadcast over the air with an antenna? (The radio spectrum is a shared public resource).

Maybe; however, if I can't get NBC because I live outside the broadcast range of the nearest station, then too bad for me. But I am talking not just about the signal, but the means by which to convert into human-view-able terrible sitcoms. Currently, we still have purchase televisions in the US. They aren't issued along with our social security cards.

Comment Re:Bias (Score 1) 447

I'm not talking right-wing fascism, and perhaps not even a winged brand of politics at all. Rather, I mean the intention of the founders of the US. If we ran our government correctly we wouldn't stand for the government colluding with corporations to limit our choice (the Gub'ment Mac-n-Cheese comment).

I am very much against the government having nearly any say in what I can do (and I will admit the current incarnation of conservative/Republican politics in the US wants just as much control as the liberal/Democrat side, albeit on different issues [sidebar: you may have noticed how when one side argues for "freedom" the other argues for government control, and they switch sides based on the topic at hand - see gay marriage and guns]).

The problem with the left wing government - back on mac-n-cheese - is the idea that the government knows best and will ensure the mac-n-cheese is up to health standards - which they also set.

Inasmuch as my stance can hypothetically lead to anarchy and daily wild west style shootouts, I see the socialist philosophy of redistribution leading to total enslavement. Those - like a friend of mine - who blithely declare themselves socialist while wearing $500 shoes and eating at fancy restaurants must not realize what they are buying into, or hope they will die before they are the rich whose wealth is next on the chopping block.

Not that I think we shouldn't help our fellow man; however, my philosophy is Airline Oxygen Maskism: The government provides the protective hull, plus the safety net of oxygen masks, and in the event the cabin loses pressure we are responsible for donning our own mask, and then we should help others who are less able. In practice, something like extremely limited federal government, a return to sovereignty at the state level (i.e., get the states off the federal dole), my tax dollars should trickle up, not down, and super-local, voluntary communal efforts. Top down socialism is as much as a fail as top down fascism.

Comment Re:Bias (Score 1) 447

Which is exactly why I am politically on the right (at least, what the right is supposed to represent; let's be honest - both sides allow corporations to affect the legislative process because we don't kick them out for doing it). Kraft can place their Mac-n-Cheese in my favorite TV show. They can fill every commercial slot with unusually loud (volume) commercial spots. They can lie and tell me I am going to die if I don't eat their Mac-n-Cheese. But unlike when the government tells me I have to eat Gub'ment-Mac-n-Cheese, Kraft can't throw me in jail for choosing a salad. Or tossing the salad, if you're into that sorta thing.

That said, I don't like DRM, but I also don't care because, as you said, I can choose not to watch. Will someone declare they have the unalienable right to Must See TV?. But what is the end game here? We continually add DRM to everything to cover how people get around it? In the distant future a requirement of citizenship will be an electronic implant, and on that implant...DRM! (When I watch pirated movies my brain interprets the images and sound as a government-sponsored message about the evils of pirating!)

Slashdot Top Deals

egrep patterns are full regular expressions; it uses a fast deterministic algorithm that sometimes needs exponential space. -- unix manuals

Working...