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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment the moral of the story is: don't hire Americans (Score -1) 303

The moral of the story is clear: don't hire Americans, don't hire anybody in the West. They actually believe they are owed a job by a business, that's very interesting but also not something a business wants to deal with.

By the way, discrimination is a human right. You don't lose your right to discriminate just because you run a business, but the way the Western laws are structured: you DO lose your right to discriminate and then you can be a target for various lawsuits based on this oppression of the individual rights by the collectivist system.

So make sure not to hire in the countries that have these types of oppressive regimes and laws in place.

Comment Re:This is horrible (Score -1) 90

Oh, this is a wonderful comment!

Also I suggest that people who are unusually tall should be shortened at the knees because they can move unfairly faster than others and see further. People with 20/20 vision should have their sight reduced artificially by mandatory cloudy glasses to make it fair for everybody and people who are just too damn pretty should have acid splashed into their faces to make life more equitable on this planet for all.

Comment Re:Who exactly is surprised by this? (Score -1) 166

Those are not necessities. Would you defend rich people being the first to have food and water and shelter?

- of-course I would, most obviously people with more means can get food and water and shelter faster and of higher quality than others. Wealth is a way to set priorities just as well as to do a number of other things, why wouldn't the rich have first access to food, water and shelter?

Comment Re: Ontario, largest subnational debtor on the pla (Score -1) 521

Wealth is an abstract concept. In nature noone owns anything

- you own your body if you can protect it. You own your territory if you can protect it. There is no difference between nature and us, we are nature.

If you don't own anything then why would you mind if I decided to kill you for food (don't worry, I am a vegetarian, but I may sell your body to others for food). So you see, your property starts with possession of your own body and mind and from there it extends to the work that you do in your life because that work takes your personal time, the time of your life.

Your work is time taken out of your life that you are spending not on pleasure but on work (maybe your work is pleasure for you but that doesn't really change anything). To take what you have worked for and to distribute it to others, who did not do this work is the injustice of oppression imposed by the collectivism that we are observing here and the more of that is happening the more people will fight against it in every possible way.

I am all for people outsourcing, automating, avoiding and evading every tax they can because that is the fight against the oppression and violence of the collectivist mob and it needs to be done.

Comment Re:Vigorous debate? Surely you jest (Score -1) 521

I've been on this site since around 1998, registered the account within a couple of years I think. As an anarcho capitalist/objectivist I don't see what it is you are seeing (this site becoming more libertarian minded, which means less Statist, less collectivist). For whatever reason the population here is quite happy to be part of a 'larger than self' collective and it's quite happy to use collectivism for protectionism, for taxation and redistribution and such. Where have you seen this shift towards 'Randian garbage' as you call it? Individuals are mostly drowned out in the overall collectivist noise here.

Comment BASIC (Score 1) 630

Just like others who started up in the 80s, my first language was BASIC. Specifically, AtariBasic. Later, when I had gotten a C128, it switched to Commodore BASIC 7.0

In both cases, I remember the hours I would spend typing in programs from magazines. Some of the games were fun. Unfortunately, I didn't have a disk (or tape) drive at the time, so after getting a program to work, the computer was kept on for days at a time until I tired of whatever I was playing with and moved on.

Comment Re:Serving his friends against his constituents (Score -1) 257

There is no such thing as 'essential service', the entire concept is what created the monopolies / oligopolies that are found around the world. Nothing is an 'essential service' (what I mean is that nothing should ever be touched/supplied by any form of government).

This ideology is what lead to the always rising prices and by the way, what the hell is 'infinite inflation of essential services'?

Inflation is expansion, inflation of money is expansion of money supply. You are talking about prices, prices *rise* and *fall*, they don't expand and contract. Inflation around the world is caused by expansion of the money supply and given the status of USD around the world, inflation today is mostly caused by the USA Federal reserve and Congress.

Comment Re:Recycle! (Score 2) 129

Now I know it's a *horror* for your standard capitalist these days, but what about, like, PLANNING (omfg, he's said the *P* word!) a bit ahead?

How do you propose to "plan"? We don't have any use for recycled materials in orbit. There's a lot of infrastructure that would need to be in place first before it makes sense to recycle.

Think about some standards which would make those things as recyclable as possible (like trying to keep a set of agreed-upon materials, standards for easy deconstructibility -- all things which, you know, *might* help us down here too), working towards a LEO factory of the future?

Let us note that those sorts of recycling standards routinely create a big mess on Earth, including lower quality electronics (such as tin whiskers) and more effort spent recycling than would be saved in materials. I don't see the point of having expensive satellites follow some recycling standard that isn't justified, lowers the effective lifespan of the satellite, and won't actually be useful for decades until someone gets around to putting the necessary recycling infrastructure in space (by the time they do, they probably will be able to handle most of the current satellites and large space debris aside from nuclear reactors).

Comment Re:Hmz.... (Score 1) 120

So you think it is okay for a company to close a plant in a state where workers have rights and moved to a state where workers can be abused with twice the hours at the same rate of pay?

Of course. I don't respect abusive labor unions, particularly in times when labor is under stress.

In 30 years 90% of manufacturing will be done by robots in the USA. this will be good for a few and horrible for many.

Unless, of course, that doesn't happen. We can implement employer-friendly social policies before then and keep that from happening.

Comment Re:Thanks for the troll mod (Score 1) 478

and not because his semi-private ideals

What ideals? If I play chess in "semi-private" with the usual rules, does that mean I have the ideal that white should go first?

Last time I heard, he was let go for that reason and for unspecified "other reasons". If you have a citation as to what those "other reasons" are which does not boil down to speculation, I'm interested in reading it.

Sorry, I don't buy that those "unspecified reasons" exist. Dries Buytaert had no problem talking about Larry Garfield's alleged "ideals", but refused to mention any other reason. What makes discussion of Garfield's bedroom proclivities even of remote relevance to the decision to end Garfield's participation in Drupal?

Comment Re:Revolution (Score -1) 130

If you're running a monopoly, and you're running 100% efficient, in what world would you be "making only enough money to survive"?

- you would accumulate savings certainly. However if you pay yourself a salary enough to live on and the rest of the money is always recycled back into the business to ensure that it runs at 100% efficiency what you have then is a fully self sustainable business that consumes almost completely all of the revenue that it generates in order to operate.

Basically if the operational expenses are almost exactly the revenues then there is almost nothing left after all of the expenses are paid. In that case what possible taxes can be applied to a business like that?

Any amount of taxes only would add to the cost of the end product/service and the result is a less than efficient system, where the consumers of the product/service are paying artificially more for getting the product/service.

In reality many businesses operate that way today already, of-course there are larger than average salaries going to the top executives but remove that and you have pretty much nothing left to remove, if you remove more then the business becomes less efficient/prices go up.

So to say that the businesses that will automate all of these jobs away will 'pay taxes' is nonsense, there is no money to pay any taxes. Any taxes added by the government will come out of the pockets of the consumers of the end product/service of the business.

In any case, the so called 'society' will not be able to extract money from businesses to pay for any type of so called 'basic income' or any form of welfare for people who don't work. The money will be extracted from everybody who is *not* a business, so it's quite simple: businesses actually generate all of the wealth and hire all of the people. Adding artificial cost to human labour increases the odds of automation / decreases the odds of new business formation / increases the odds of existing businesses leaving or failing. So the intelligent thing to do is to remove all artificial costs of running a business, removing the government taxes and regulations of business and labour, manipulation of money and interest rates and allow people to work out a natural fluid solution to these questions, not to try and hammer in the idea that those who work are going to be forced to pay for those who do not.

Those who work already provide everybody with all the goods and services that everybody needs, the contribution of any business to the society starts with the product/service the company produces with the added benefit of the person running the company being self reliant and not needing any form of help from anybody. Society should want to encourage people to start businesses and to do that it should remove the barriers to entry, reduce the costs of starting and running business, remove barriers, remove taxes, remove regulations.

The chips will still fall where they may but at least without government interference individuals will start businesses helping other individuals just like themselves. There *will* be separation of companies, some catering to the top tier of buyers, some to the middle and many (most) to the bottom tier. This should be happening now but it cannot because the companies in the top/middle tier prevent the ones at the bottom from competing and they are using the power of the State to destroy the competition by all means, including taxes, laws and money and interest rate manipulation.

Slashdot Top Deals

The number of computer scientists in a room is inversely proportional to the number of bugs in their code.

Working...