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 Re:Makes sense (Score 1) 174

if you really believe that manifesto you're exactly the kind of person everyone else should be looking to lynch

- I already addressed this in the comment you are replying to. That's the point of full self protection and the interim steps to achieve full independence.

because that attitude leads to a few people hoarding and the masses starving.

- actually this attitude is what leads to progress by increasing productivity of those who are looking to be free. This attitude is the only attitude that actually allows the so called 'society' to progress further in the first place. Everybody who ever searched for a profit by building/providing/selling some products/service to the rest of the mob is the person who pushed the mob further as a consequence of his search for freedom. We have billions of people today in the world, who are only alive because of the search of profit by the few who want to be free.

Not everyone starts out with equal means or opportunity, you know.

- yes, I know, that is 100% irrelevant, completely irrelevant because the point is not to equalize everybody's beginnings, the point is to achieve personal freedom.

Again, the fact that people are different and come from different backgrounds is a demagogue's tool to collective theft and nothing else.

Comment Re:Dilemma Solution (Score 1) 174

Society as you know would not exist

- where is the issue? Society as I know it is not the society I believe should exist.

And it ain't stealing pal, taxes are a fact of life,

- so are diseases (a fact of life). Taxes and diseases are detrimental to the individual, to 'quit moaning and pay them' is about as good as to 'quit moaning and suffer keep being sick'.

Comment Re:Makes sense (Score 1) 174

Productivity is literally the ability to produce. The people who produce are the people that build the productive capacity (own productive systems, factories, land, mines, farms, whatever).

Automation increases the productivity of the people who own the productive assets, not of people who are not the owners. The owner is the one whose productivity grows, not somebody who has nothing to do with the productive asset in the first place.

The entire point of running a business is to be productive enough to stop being dependent for other productive people for survival. The most desirable case is to achieve full self reliance.

Full self reliance = full independence from every single person out there.

Full independence from the people, full independence from the systems that are not under your own private control.

Full Self Reliance = Full Independence = FREEDOM. Freedom from people and from systems, freedom from the desires of the collective, freedom from anybody who has an opinion.

That's the point, so when somebody aiming at achieving full independence, full self reliance and full freedom be forced to give up that freedom in the name of 'morality' the only correct response is to work harder towards Full Freedom, which includes Complete Self Protection.

Full reliance = full independence = full freedom = complete self protection.

Complete self protection from the opinions, from the desires, from the collective will of the masses. That is the goal. In the interim using charity and government manipulation is an acceptable solution to the problem of the collective force that can be used to take away the tools, assets and the productive output of the productive individual.

--

In reality everybody should be aiming towards the same thing, being fully self reliant, fully independent, fully free and completely self protected. That's a good goal, try and do it for yourself.

Comment Re:Dilemma Solution (Score 1) 174

I disagree. I do not believe in stealing from the few to subsidise the many and there is no reason to trade with people who are not producing anything in return for the trade (and no, paper money is not a thing that is relevant, the only relevant thing is productive output of an individual).

I think the only correct response to any form of job loss is removal of all government involvement in the business, labour and money. The chips must fall where they may, people without the past jobs can work for people who start new businesses but the only possible way to start new businesses in the automation environment is to remove government oppression from the equation entirely.

Comment Missing Principles (Score 1) 73

Your brainstorming works because while you have not figured out the exact script, you understand the method and concepts to complete the task. This is what I believe would be common among all people who brainstorm successfully as individuals. They use the Socratic method to interrogate the process they have in mind and come up with the best solution.

In a group, brainstorming can work if you have the right set of people with the intellectual capacity to debate and question (Socratic Method), and similar to the individual, knowledge of the concepts and methods needed to complete the task.

Then we have "Corporate" brainstorming, which unfortunately lacks those same principles. Lacking the basics, people and groups hang out in quiet (AKA "Safe") spaces and "brainstorm". Those sessions are not usually eventful. In the occasion where an idea comes out of the session, it's quite horrible.

Comment how about tunnels? (Score 1) 213

If we are going to smoke some serious weed here, I propose this idea: tunnels.

Dig a bunch of tunnels, airplanes can land onto a shorter strip and go underground. You can have as many tunnels pointing in as many directions as you want and the cool part is that all you have to worry about is ... floods and the under ground zombie people.... but it will look cool

Comment and if people have different information? (Score 1) 73

I find that it is useful to do brainstorming when it is 2-4 people, each one having worked on a different part of the same system as an example, then it is more or less useful. At least it helps to avoid major mishaps, people who know their particular part of the system / problem can filter everybody's input through their knowledge and at the minimum provide reasons for why a proposed idea will/will not work.

Comment Re:Machines replacing bank tellers? (Score 1) 269

everyone to race to the bottom instead of having the ability (and the financial wherewithal) to be individuals

- yeah, I don't want any single person to benefit from any oppression of any other single person out there. Not one should be oppressed to provide anything to any one. To actually *earn* to be an individual is quite different from thinking you are an 'individual' because somebody was oppressed to provide you with this so called 'individuality'.

Whatever you said doesn't matter to me one single bit, I look at what you write here and I know exactly what sort of a monstrous prick I am dealing with.

Comment History will repeat (Score 1, Troll) 55

Facebook and Google already did that, trying to censor Republican concerns and promoting Hillary and the Progressive movement. I have zero faith that they will change their behavior, and believe they are part of the same leftist agenda as most media in the US.

I'll also add that today most young people are not taught about the US Constitution or History in general that does not favor progressivism. They are not trained in rhetoric, and not trained in the Socratic method. (You may be, but the generalization is correct that a large percentage is not). This means that they fall prey to propaganda much easier than someone older who has some ability to recognize and ignore the propaganda. The least educated among us are not necessarily the best people to vote. Those type of person vote one way, and it is never Conservative/Republican.

Comment Re:Nonsense (Score 3, Insightful) 267

It's an education thing. People who know how English evolved know that 'he' can be both masculine or neuter, depending on context. It's been that way since before 'ye', 'thou', 'thy' and similar words went away.

People who are uneducated may assume that 'he' is only masculine and will choose to feel oppressed about it. I can't imagine how bad those people feel using romance languages where half of the nouns are masculine gendered.

It's somewhat awkward, but less so than losing the singular/plural distinction. Style guides are a useful reference, but feel free to ignore their inconsistencies and poor suggestions.

Slashdot Top Deals

UFOs are for real: the Air Force doesn't exist.

Working...