Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:hmmm (Score 2) 658

So, you're saying that the MAJORITY is unproductive, and they're STEALING from the PRODUCTIVE MINORITY? What the fuck are you talking about fool? Tell me, how are those "minority" so fucking productive? Signing the articles of incorporation and moving 1's and 0's between two points isn't fucking productive you moron. Who is being productive here are the workers that allow the business to make money. Nowhere is this more evident than in small businesses. I know, I've owned small businesses, starting with next to ZERO dollars, doing all the work myself.

When I was the Majority of my labor, I was most productive. When I hired on some help, I managed contracts and filed taxes, did office work for half the time. I relied on my laborers to do the productive work. That desk work is necessary red-tape, but it's far from fucking productive. Wheeling and dealing clients to get more jobs is necessary, but you're a fucking idiot if you think it's more productive that the people doing the labor to fill those contracts.

When you were an owner/manager I think you could be pretty productive, it's just that your productivity was expressed through the people below you. I've had bad management before and the result was despite doing a lot of work I wasn't really productive because the work was worthless.

When I talk about unproductive rich people I'm not talking about owners or managers from your position. I mean the people like George Bush, I'm not trying to be partisan but his legacy as a businessman was losing a lot of money, he didn't start and run companies because he was good at it, he did it because he had family connections. I think there's a lot of this going on, an upper class that have excellent high level jobs essentially handed to them that they're not really qualified for and where it's kinda hard to evaluate their value.

There's a whole other potion of the economy tied up in investment and financial services that has some productive value in directing capital to good companies that need it, but because they're so good at directing money they'd managed to direct much more of the economy than is required into their own sector. There's a lot of people making a lot of money gaming the system instead of actually helping organize the economy.

That's what I think of when I think of the unproductive rich, not the managers or owners who got their on their own work and talent, but the people who have learned to manipulate the economy to get rich without really adding anything in return.

Comment Re:hmmm (Score 1) 658

As to the situation in USA where people are gambling with money rather than investing it into productive capacity, that's the inevitable result of the Keynesian monetary policy, printing money, inflation, but also various other policies with the expressed goal of growing consumption at the expense of production (so any type of government guaranteed loan, where the guarantee comes as an expense on the productive population and the loans that are given out are only given out due to the guarantee and would never be given out in a competitive free market environment, because those loans have no chance of making a meaningful productive return by creating something of any value to the market place).

I don't believe that's Keynesian economics you're describing.

IANAE (I am not an economist) but Keynesians basically believe that recession are a result of a drop in Aggregate Demand (AD), the total amount of spending. Basically because the economy sucks no one has extra money to spend, so no one is employed to make and sell things, so no one has extra money to spend...

So Keynesians say that during a recession when AD from the private sector drops the government should replace all the lost spending from the private sector with new spending from the government. Basically use fiscal policy and ramp up massive deficits during a recession, then when the economy recovers government spending should drop and you pay off the deficits. I think the 2008 recession would be predicted fairly well by Keynesian economics and the period of high spending prior to '08 was very much against Keynesian thinking.

There's another school of economists known as monetarists who agree about a drop in AD causing recessions, but like using monetary policy instead of fiscal policy, basically they print a bunch of new money, inject it into the economy, and hope it stimulates new activity. I think this is what you meant by "Keynesian monetary policy, printing money, inflation".

But in both cases you're talking about things like taxes and government loans that exited long before the recession, so they don't really have anything to do with Keynesians or monetarists.

You sound a bit like the Austrian school of economics, I don't know it that well but I think it basically believes that recessions are the results of government meddling in the economy, they don't really try to fix recessions, but seem to believe recessions wouldn't happen under their system. I think the modern version of this is the Chicago school who are very libertarian but are also monetarists in the case of a recession.

Comment Re:How about this (Score 1) 279

How about this? Stop making stupid Star Wars movies and come up with a new idea.

I don't necessarily agree, Star Wars has a very rich universe which gives a new movie the advantage of ditching some exposition and working in a universe the viewer has an emotional connection with.

Of course that only works if they recapture the vision and adventure of the original trilogy, I think it's possible (particularly if you pull in some of the old cast) but if they can't make it work it's probably better to leave it alone.

Comment Re:Whole Trial is bullshit (Score 2) 325

He does not lose his right to self-defense because some 911 operator told him to back off. So he followed a guy walking around in the rain in an area that had recent burglaries. So perhaps he 'profiled' him because he wore a hoodie, perhaps because he was black. Perhaps he did a poor job as a neighborhood watchman, he got too zealous in protecting the neighborhood (not as much as some mall cops but whatever). None of this has any baring on the fact that once Martin jumped on him and started bashing his head against the pavement (as all evidence suggest he did) he had the RIGHT to defend himself with lethal force. A legal right, as in under the law in force at the time. Charge him for sucking as a neighborhood watchman, or for following the guy (whatever crime that is) but there is no rational reason to charge him with murder. It is pure mob justice of the worst kind.

Here's what we do know.

Martin was walking home in a way that made Zimmerman suspicious. Zimmerman then started following him and called the police, at the same time Martin called his friend and apparently told her about the guy that was following him.

The next thing we know is there was a fight that Martin was probably winning until Zimmerman drew his gun and shot Martin.

Zimmerman's attempt to fill in the blanks has Zimmerman walking back to his car, Martin coming up from behind, confront him, punching him (breaking his nose), knocking him down and bashing his head against the side walk, seeing the gun and saying either "You're gonna die now" or "You're gonna die tonight", at which point Zimmerman drew his gun and fired.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that story has a lot of BS.

Maybe the confrontation happened when ZImmerman was going back to the car, or while he was continuing to follow. But there was probably some sort of escalating discussion before it turned into a fight, Martin certainly gave a good shot to the nose but the marks on the head could just be scuff marks from struggling on the sidewalk. And Martin seeing the other guy has a gun, and responding with "You're gonna die now" or "You're gonna die tonight" is frankly a bit over the top.

Now I don't know what actually happened, and the true story might still be valid self defense, but I'm sure there's some embellishment since Zimmerman's current tale basically has Martin going nuts for no reason while he's a saint. And we know Zimmerman lied, he clearly told Hannity that he never ever heard of stand your ground, while this witness said he taught Zimmerman in a course where stand your ground was a main topic.

Comment Re:Whole Trial is bullshit (Score 1) 325

Even "confrontation" makes no difference. The only thing that would negate the self-defense plea is if Zimmerman actually physically attacked Martin and then progressed from fighting to shooting.

Even if Martin did start the fight if Zimmerman was winning the fight (and it was Martin who was yelling for Zimmerman to get off of him) wouldn't that also negate the self-defense plea?

Comment Re:Who cares? (Score 1) 334

Seriously, the only people who really give two craps about booth babes are a) hypersensitive gender warriors and b) tech writers on a slow news day.

c) Female geeks at tech conferences.

To anyone still wondering why there's so few women in IT I'd like to offer this thread as evidence.

Comment Re:Who wants booth babes, I want Booth studs :3 (Score 1) 334

It's about respect, imagine you were at a conference, and because some management type decided geeks are too unappealing they hired bodybuilders and male models to stand out in front of the booths. Wouldn't you find that a little insulting, that despite all your knowledge and experience some dude with a six pack is more welcome at a tech conference than you?

Comment Re:Why so unknown? (Score 1) 57

Well judging by the lack of comments here and my own lack of knowledge he wasn't that well known among scifi geeks either.

Looking at his work he might have simply been a outside the main part of the genre, he obviously had some very major successes but never won any Hugos or Nebulas which tend to be fairly common among the top SF authors. He did good work but ended up in a small niche.

Comment Re:Killing Politicians (Score 1) 134

Actually I'm trolling. I'm trying to get some members of the biologic research community to do a little self-examination. I don't know much about the subject, but here is what I do know (now that I have been pushed into articulating it):

1. We are doing more biological research with what are basically 19th century approaches involving the death, pain, and mutilation of animals than we need to be doing. We do not know how much more (which is covered in greater detail in point 3)

I'd really like you to back up that "19th century approaches" claim.

2. To do this, we are training grad students, lab techs, and sometimes undergrads who need a biology credit in the intensive use of the ego defense mechanisms of "clinical objectivity" or "clinical detachment." Which is also the conscious suppression of normal human empathy. There is little to no screening done beforehand to determine if these persons have the emotional maturity and self-insight to limit the use of these mechanisms to the biology lab. There is no follow-up of these individuals; not even the ones who are given their walking papers because they are too unbalanced to do the work properly. Yet the clinical detachment that is needed to handle lab animals creates serious problems when it is used inappropriately in relationships, with children, in an office setting, among colleagues, etc.

You obviously shouldn't get emotionally attached to lab animals for a variety of reasons (not all bad ones). But people are good at compartmentalizing. As for your accusations about clinical detachment do you have any evidence for these claims?

3. No one in the biology research field is even seeing this as a problem. Despite the mass murders of the last few years, where the mechanisms of "clinical detachment" are taken to the pathological extreme. There is no discussion of whether it is time to start limiting training in these techniques, no discussion about how to reduce the number of individuals affected, there is not even an attempt to determine the scope of the problem. The closest is the USDA figures on the number of selected lab animals in active use in the USA: that is 1.3 million. But it excludes rats and mice and animals being bred for scientific use but not yet put to that use. The number of lab animals that lab techs and grad students are exposed to in this country has been estimated at between 10 and 50 million. But even with the 1.3 million figure, that is a large pool of persons being trained in the skills of clinical objectivity (with nothing being done to assure that they are capable of appropriately using those skills, or prevented from maybe obtaining a fully automatic rifle if they are not capable of policing their own psyches).

What seems to be necessary is to push the individuals in the biology research community into confronting the absurdity of their rationales and deliberate blindnesses, and get them looking for ways to move the research animal labs out of the 19th century and into the 21st century. Agitating for laws that would enforce limits upon the research communities seems to be necessary, just to get their attention.

Whether such laws are needed is a topic that is open for discussion. That the research community must be pushed into doing a scientific study on the effects of its practices on the psyches of its minions is definitely necessary.

Again all you've done is speculate, you've shown absolutely no evidence for psychological damage among researchers, you haven't even found an anecdote of some spree shooter being a biologist. People can eat meat without being sociopaths, they can look at cows in a field without being sociopaths, why are you assuming they can't deal with lab animals and avoid emotional attachment without incurring a mental illness?

Comment Re:impossible (Score 1) 297

Don't you know? As part of a collective you can steal from the rest and give yourself a nice subsidy. You can force an obligation upon the rest of the people and give yourself a nice entitlement.

That's what 'civil rights' are there is no such thing, there are only individual rights.

There are no 'women rights', there are no 'gay rights', there are no 'children rights', there are no 'minority rights', there are no 'disabled rights', there are no 'worker rights', etc.etc.

There are only individual rights and when some group (any group) is given what the modern collectivist state likes to call 'civil right' what it actually does it puts an obligation upon some people to provide entitlements to some group. This is the exact opposite of the meaning of the concept of 'right'.

A right is only a meaningful concept in the context of a relationship between an individual and the State, not 2 individuals, not an individual and a business. A right is limitation of authority of the collective to destroy rights of an individual.

'Civil right' is the exact opposite of an actual right, 'civil right' relies on destruction of actual real individual rights, it's Orwellian doublespeak.


No right is absolute, rights are an emergent property of our society, they're something we agreed on to help each other get along.

Individual rights are the most basic and the most important of these, but they' re not the only ones. Civil rights are an important infringement on individual rights if we want to live in a civil society. The loss of individual liberty suffered from a civil right is minimal (you can't fire that guy because he's gay), but the amount of welfare gained is huge (the gay guy doesn't have to lie).

Comment Re:"benefit the survival of the species" (Score 1) 134

Which species?

And that is a strange phrase. I cannot think of any research that helps the survival of either Humans or Chimps.

My reading is that most of the research on chimps is either some kind of basic research or direct efforts to improve human health. This is the research this rule would eliminate.

But if some disease starts wiping out wild chimpanzee populations the researchers are still allowed to experiment on them to save other chimps.

Comment Re:Killing Politicians (Score 1) 134

WRT using chimps in testing, that is now so bogus. The automobile has replaced the horse and buggy and freed horses for their rightful place as pampered pets (there are now more horses in the USA than there were in 1899-- hoowoodathunkit?) The MRI and computer simulations are now replacing the old fashioned use of chimps in the laboratory. There is no question that sooner or later the nasty old ways of doing biological research are going to become history, just like the horse and buggy, replaced by technology that can do the job faster, better, and without exploiting some other species. The only question is when do we pass the laws that will force today's buggy whip manufacturers to find some better source of employment?

This will cause a shake-up in the research and development industry, as the employment opportunities of persons who have spent their careers developing skills in carving up the brains of primates will be out of work and unemployable. Along with a host of other specialists in supporting roles. A lot of these people are quite likely incapable of finding other work. It requires a certain kind of blockage of normal human empathy to slice and dice a chimpanzee, and without that a lot of job opportunities will be closed to these individuals with their self-inflicted damage to their psyches.

I don't know much about the people doing research on chimps (though found it fascinating that you couldn't resist essentially calling them sociopaths) but I do a little computational neuroscience. MRI has some serious limitations, and our simulations aren't anywhere close to replacing the need for live subjects and they probably won't be until we're post-singularity.

If you want to argue that the science isn't worth the cost then make that argument, but don't claim the same science can be done without the cost.

Comment More useless than useless (Score 1) 293

I'm sure a lot of pirated dev kits are floating around already, as for the source code, who cares? Another game company isn't going to go near it, I guess in the worst case if everything is there a bunch of devs could get together, strip out all the drm, and release a really good pirated version, but I just don't see this being a big risk for the game companies.

Oh yeah,

Recently, Kotaku reported that SuperDaE, a 17 year-old minor, was facing an array of eight legal charges, including "possession of cannabis and drug paraphernalia", "possession of a prohibited weapon", "possession of identification material with intent to commit an offence", and "possessing and copying an indecent or obscene article, possession of child exploitation material".

So an Australian, being charged by Australian police for crimes that have nothing to do with computers, apparently thinks a bunch of American and Japanese game companies can protect him if he blackmails them?

Good luck with that...

Comment Re:But why? (Score 1) 860

What exactly does it help if the world does know his name?

I guess the NSA already knew his name, and he figured that he'd be safer if the public knows it, too. If a person with a name nobody has ever heard of disappears somewhere in Hong Kong, nobody will care too much. If the person who is known to have leaked the NSA documents disappears, it might make the media notice.

I don't see why he'd get disappeared, it doesn't matter how ruthless the NSA is killing him has no upside. If anyone ever found out it would be a major black eye for the NSA, and it can't be a deterrent since nobody knows they got him! It would be brutal optics since all the outside world would see is that the leaker got away!

Best case for them is to catch him, discredit him, and put him in jail for a long time as a warning to anyone else.

If they got close Edward Snowden outting himself is a brilliant more, he has the first chance to write the narrative and take the moral highground.

He's just gone from a hidden figure being hunted by law enforcement to a concerned citizen giving public interviews and ready to face the music, he's framing the discussion as a political one instead of a criminal one. He's made it a lot harder politically for the Feds to throw the book at him.

Comment Hands up if you used it (Score 1) 229

Has anyone actually ever used the functionality? I haven't and I can't see myself changing. It could be they removed it with some malicious intent, or it could be someone said 'why are we supporting feature X that no body ever uses'. If I posted a lot I could see myself downloading an archive and doing some analysis of the content for fun, but for the most part the only people I see wanting an archive is people who use it as a micro-blogging service. On principal I like the idea of having it, I'm just curious if anyone here has ever used it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Most people will listen to your unreasonable demands, if you'll consider their unacceptable offer.