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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Counterproductive reasoning (Score 0, Troll) 130

... 55 countries that contribute a total of at least 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions

So, in effect, 55% of the countries should pollute more to get an agreement working to pollute less. And, off course, every country that does not wait for the agreement to take effect and starts pollution reduction now is spoiling it for the rest.

Stupid rules like this are why only politicians believe the climate agreement actually helps to achieve something.

Comment Re:The USA wont follow this (Score 1) 68

Among others. I read that the border between the Koreas is equipped with auto-firing machine guns. The funny thing is that these ethical guidelines show us clearly that we often want robots to overcome our own ethical boundaries. Another use of robots is sex toys. You bet that they will discriminate, and exactly how the user or manufacturer wants them to. Reading this article shows me that if there are ethical boundaries to be crossed, we often tend to approach them from the wrong side.

Comment Re:I think it's fair (Score 1) 178

And goods, services, people and work have no exchange value?

Well, obviously, otherwise there was no economy. But if only one side determines the price (this is not equal to the value), it is nothing less than extortion. So don't mix economy with finance, and do not mix value with price. For example, the online casino that we call stock market offers no economic value at all, but has a huge financial impact. The fact that a real-economy bread is paid in the same currency as virtual-economy "futures" for grain that will never be planted is a huge problem. Seen from the bread that currency is worth something, and seen from the futures, it is worth nothing. Both are incompatible and just plain wrong and the situation is just waiting for a crisis to happen.

All I mean is that a prerequisite for changes (usually growth) is some kind of surplus.

No. The prerequisite for changes is a need for it. If you have really small communities, people learn to do everything themselves and hardly trade. Once the communities get larger, they see that some people are good at something and start dividing the work. Only in unmanageable societies you have the need for a common exchange thingy (=money). But if the money is not made by the society itself (or its representation), this opens up a big can of worms.

wasting opportunity by having people do things that machines could do better with the same input is suboptimal

Depends on the need and whether you like to do the job. Machines are by far better at taking a walk than I am. And if I use public transport to go to work, it saves me energy and I even don't have to pay attention to the road. But I rather use my bicycle. It pays off in a lot more things than just money.

Comment Re:I think it's fair (Score 1) 178

even if the price is nation-wide economic inefficiency?

I don't think you mean what you say with this. economic means that it is about goods and services, people and work. financial is about money. So replacing humans with machines is a horrible thing to do economically, because more people get unemployed and if they hardly have an income, they cannot keep other people working either. The problem is off course that for one bloke at the top this pays off financially. Only if you believe the fairy tale of the "trickle down economy", you could say that there is an economic gain.

Comment Re:Only possible with REASONABLE tax rates (Score 1) 630

If you tax the 1% who do not pay taxes at all these days, you'd probably have more than enough to support the program.

What really would help would be if the government had the right to produce "positive" or "neutral" money. Now, central banks issue money as loans with the obligation of paying usury (the euphemism is "interest") and the money for this usury is never made. So in the end, central banks do not issue money, they only issue uncovered debt.

If a government could issue money (I know that is still possible in the USA, but not in the EU), they could inject it where it is needed and take it away again (through taxes, for example) where it is harmful. Current governments do exactly the opposite: the harmful accumulations are no longer taxed, and everyone else pays for it.

Slashdot Top Deals

"What a wonder is USENET; such wholesale production of conjecture from such a trifling investment in fact." -- Carl S. Gutekunst