Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Bullshit (Score 1) 473

The top 1% is so completely dependent on the lower 99% that all we have to do is shun them and they'd wither and die in a matter of days, weeks tops.

Tell me how you propose to do this without revolution or mass starvation? Country wide boycott and strike sounds like a great idea, but there would be a lot of lives lost in the process (not saying I'm against it, I just don't think you'll find enough people willing to take that risk yet)

Comment Re:Bullshit (Score 4, Interesting) 473

Not saying your point is wrong, but your argument does not hold. The top 5% control greater than 90% of the capital resources in the US, yet pay only 60% of the burden of maintaining that wealth (using the number you supplied). I'm not saying whether I support either side in this, I'm just saying you need a better argument.

Comment Re:What what what? (Score 1) 647

Based on the summary alone, there is no common sense here. If this were legal precedent it would make "theft of service" the equivalent of "potential delayed payment." According to the summary, the verdict states that the only punishment for theft of service (which is effectively what copyright infringement is) would be to have to pay what you should have paid in the first place. If this were true, and even more so if it was then applied to physical property, then there would be no reason to ever pay for any thing. Simply take it, put the amount it would have cost into an interest baring account, and only pay for it when and if you are ever charged with the violation. Even if you did end up paying for it, you still end up profiting as you got to use the product while earning interest on it's cost.

I'm not saying that fines for theft or IP rights violations should be exorbitant, but they do have to be higher than the original product cost. If the fine is no higher than the cost it would be financially foolish to pay for anything until legally bound to do so.

Comment Re:A need to rethink economics for post-scarcity (Score 1) 320

Please read the link that you provided.

On January 5, 1914, the Ford Motor Company took the radical step of doubling pay to $5 a day and cut shifts from nine hours to eight, moves that were not popular with rival companies, although seeing the increase in Ford's productivity, and a significant increase in profit margin (from $30 million to $60 million in two years), most soon followed suit.

It doesn't go into enough detail, but in the United States, the 8 hr day has only become standard because Henry Ford and his company determine that people were most productive when working only 8 hrs a day. So in turn for reducing the work day, increasing pay, and offering paid holidays Ford was able to increase profits. The standardization of the 8 hr day had very little to do with any the "people had to fight for".

The rest of the article, pertaining to the United States, is mostly insignificant compared to this point. Had it not been profitable it would not have been implemented and accepted.

Comment Re:Heard of L.A.? San Jose? San Diego? (Score 1) 235

Your math skills leave much to be desired. San Francisco is over 48% white, which is 15% higher than the next largest demographic, and just under a full majority. San francisco is part of the Bay Area metro area which 52.5% white. The LA metro area is over 54% white, and only 44% hispanic including white hispanic. I don't even need to look at your other stats to know they are inaccurate in their conclusion.

Comment Re:It's a big deal (Score 1) 518

[The Chinese] are working hard to steal American jobs, American tech, and they are working hard to dominate American interests.

Don't blame China for this. The Chinese are trying to creating employment for their people. Americans on the other hand are doing everything they can to ship their employment and capital out of their own country and into the hands of others, with china being one of the main benefactors. China does not need to work hard to dominate American interest, the Americans are very happy to hand it over on a silver platter.

I don't like China because it is communist

I can't say I know why you personally hate China, but it's not because they are Communist, since they are not. I live for the day that this fallacy stops being repeated.

Comment Re:I think we should ban cosmetics completely (Score 1) 383

I actually wasn't suggesting banning, just supporting that cosmetics are fraud. I don't actually read the subject line so missed that there was actually a call to ban cosmetics. Though honestly I can't really think of any use, off the stage, that does not constitute fraud, so maybe they should be regulated like pyrotechnics.

Honestly I don't think we should ban cosmetics or the deceptive advertising. If women and men want to be gullible and fall for the fraud being perpetrated then that's on them. But that doesn't make it any less fraud.

Comment Re:Users disagree with him (Score 2) 980

If the apps window is at the bottom right of the screen you have to go all the way up to the top left to...

...hit an infinitely wide/tall menu item.

Accessing an OS X menu item is faster than hitting any other button on the screen accept the one directly under the current mouse position, or in one of the four corners. There for contextual menus are the fastest to access, but require some learning to even realize they are there and what is in them. Corner menus would be the next fastest, but they would only hold a single button, which would be an odd interface. So there for your best bet are screen edge menus, which is exactly what OS X has.

Windows menus are the absolute worst possible way to implement a menu. The are not directly under the current mouse position and are not in any of the easy to reach in a single motion, areas of the screen, and lastly they are relatively small (sometimes ridiculously small). And even with their bad placement and small size they waste important screen real estate.

Comment Re:PC analogy (Score 1) 278

As I said, I never purchased an iPhone, I just know that Apple does not sell them without a contract, I just have no clue what the contract says and wouldn't doubt that it includes details about the hardware.

The hardware involved is good hardware, it would be more expensive and very very difficult to attempt to get the same thing without just purchasing the product. Why should the company have any right whatsoever to dictate how I use their product as long as I am not harming anyone else?

So rather than purchase from a company who would allow you to use your hardware how ever you would like, you would instead give your money to a company that supports restricting your usage of the hardware. You might as well be sending money directly to the legal team that will be filing suit against your for violation of the EULA. Don't sound like a smart thing to me, but then again I haven't purchased a iPhone,though I'm sure I've given plenty to the Apple legal team through other purchases.

But while we're asking questions, what gives you the right to determine how a company choses to sell their products? If they chose to sell it under the conditions that that you can not modify it or otherwise change it, then they have every right to add that stipulation. It's not like you did not know this before purchasing the product, or at the very worst after reading the licensing agreement and still able to return the product. It's the companies product and they can chose to sell it to whomever under what ever conditions they chose (or at least they would if there was actually a free market*). If you don't like those conditions then don't by the product.

* This should not be taken as an endorsement of free market economy.

Comment Re:Unionize (Score 1) 253

I would suggest spending some time actually researching what happens in Union. You would probably even do well to work in a Unionized environment. Do yourself a favor and do so in a union that has members in both a right-to-work state and one without right-to-work regulations. Spending a little time in a union environment is leaps and bounds beyond anything you will ever see or read about labor unions. Mass media is very much biased against Unions, since unions have fought for their employees to be treated well and fairly compensated, but if you don't have the time or opportunity to be in a union environment I'm sure there are some good books out there that could explain the truth about unions (I don't know any because I lived it and never felt a need to read about it).

Comment Re:PC analogy (Score 1) 278

Completely irrelevant here. If I bought an HP PC the first thing I would do is format the HDD and remove all ties to HP, while replacing it with my own OS. This is exactly like buying any applicable device and jailbreaking it.

If you could figure out how to replace all the licensed software on the device, or at least any whose licensing agreement you would be violating, then you can go ahead and do the same thing with the so called locked down devices. Assuming you bought an iPhone without agreement to any contract about the hardware (I do not own one so I don't know what they have you sign), all you have to do is remove every last trace of apple software and then you can install anything you want (Oh you might also have to figure out how to do that without violating the DMCA).

Or, and this is a really novel idea, you don't purchase products from companies that would like to restrict how you use their products.

Comment Re:PC analogy (Score 1) 278

Isn't this exactly what a licensing agreement is, rental of a product. In the case of a game console, the hardware is not licensed but the software, including the firmware, is. The games are also licensed. So as long as you accept that these products are licensed (I'm not going to get into an argument over that), then you see that the only restriction is that you can not use the licensed software in violation of the license. I would be willing to be that you would find out that this is the actual reality of things. You can put what ever software you want on the the console, but you can't use any of the original software or software licensed to run in conjunction with the original software.

The typical license is simply a rental of indefinite duration that cost one flat fee and can be revoked according to the terms of the argeement.

Comment Re:Unionize (Score 1) 253

The flaw in your thinking is that unions aren't just normal organizations. They have their own laws.

This is not a flaw of unionization or a valid argument against unions, but go ahead and argue against the regulations. I personally would support removing any laws that protect unions specifically, as many states have done with their right-to-work laws, but if and only if we also remove corporate personhood and other corporate protections. But that is beside the point, since supporting unionization has nothing to do with supporting current regulation.

You're very casually dismissing a hundred years of violence and intimidation.

If you were to add up the total number of deaths directly linked to unionization it would considerable lower than many other organizations and actions. The most obvious is the military, and few people would support a wholesale disbanding of the military. Second would be corporations, with disasters like that caused by Union Carbide out numbering the union actions in one incident. Nuclear power, the war over oil, tobacco, alcohol, suicides from the stress of higher education, and these are just a few off the top of my head. These are a mix off good and bad things. The point is that unionization is not amoral, any more than say something like religion. Sure the inquisition killed numerous people, but the quakers and the Mennonites have not hard any one (with a couple rare notable exceptions). The unions of today are not the thugs of the industrial revolution, and even then most union members where moral and law abiding citizens. And that's not even talking about the number of lives saved through improved working conditions that was brought about by unionization.

Seniority is not a valid basis...because they can't be let go

Your are mixing up loosely related issues. Seniority is a valid basis if you chose to only keep competent and productive employees. The fact that getting rid of incompetent employees might take a bit of a paper trail is no reason to argue that seniority is invalid. In most states you don't even need a paper trail. Sure the unions are there to protect employees from wrongful termination, but trust me, if the person deserves to be let go the unions will not protect them. The idea that unions protect incompetents is a myth, intentional or otherwise, that undermines the reality of unionization.

Keep believing the myths if you must, but I would suggest that you educate yourself, with first hand experience if possible, before dismissing the benefits of unionization.

Comment Re:Unionize (Score 1) 253

As I said above I previously worked for a union shop but was not the member or the union. I received the same compensation as the union employees and even received union representation if needed such as for disciplinary action. But there are things I did not get because I was not a union member. I was not eligible to receive compensation during a strike, and I had no say in the union negotiations.

The only reason I received those benefits is because the union negotiated them and made it contractual that the company could not hire non-union members fro less than union pay. Had the union not negotiated such then the company would have hired lower quality, lower cost, resources. So I did reap the benefits of unionization without being a member. That actually makes me even more supportive of unions, since there is no way a corporation would have worked on my behalf for free.

And just a tid-bit for those that don't know, 22 US states have right-to-work regulations. What this means is that the Union and companies can not enter into contracts that force union membership.

Slashdot Top Deals

If at first you don't succeed, you are running about average.