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

 



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:Verizon (Score 1) 105

I take trips with my buddies each year where we fly to a big airport and drive around 1500-2000 miles round trip from there into rural areas on back roads.

We are a great cross-section of providers with Tmo, ATT, Sprint and VZW. I was the only one with service for the entire trip the last two times (NE states and NW states). ATT was next best. Sprint was the worst and Tmo was next.

My family takes a ~3000 mile road trip every summer. I've only been out of service once or twice in 7 years and those were in rural areas of Alabama or Oklahoma (IIRC).

I wouldn't give up VZW for anything.

Comment Re:Cultural ethics won't allow work-free life (Score 1) 236

Cultural ethics won't allow

  • married women working
  • unmarried couples staying in the same hotel room
  • black and white people in the same section of a bus
  • gay marriages

etc.

Also, how about living a work-free life on your savings or investments? The idea of basic income is really an extended version of that.

Comment Re:Unemployment (Score 1) 323

"Automation has been going on since the industrial revolution, yet new jobs seem to keep on being created"

The problem is, the rate of stable unskilled and skilled job creation does not cover the rate of destruction in some countries. Note I said stable : interim job , gig job, part time job are anything but stable. And now we are entering an era where full automation of some previously unskilled job is a pretty damn possibilities. When that will start, I predict that if by then we don't have a way to provide basic income to everybody, the society will quickly disintegrate : our western society can't be sustained if the rate of stable job destruction continue.

Comment Re:Unintended consequences (Score 1) 323

The problem still remains that "over-abundance" will only apply to labor. It won't apply to capacity nor to raw resources. We'll have lots of humans with not enough to do, whereas Marxism remains a "classical" economic system which still thinks in terms of scarcity of labor.

I don't think the future is Communist, but neither do I think it is strictly capitalist. I think we're still going to have a fundamentally consumer society, still at its core free market, it's just that labor will no longer be an issue. It will mean adjusting precisely how it is that society as a whole profits from the means of production. And remember that Marxism was always more than merely an economic theory, but was fundamentally a socio-political theory. It was innovative in that it viewed economics as the very core, but it proposed a good deal more than simply "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", and involved revolution, dictatorship and what really does amount to a sort of single party state (because, after all, who needs more than one political movement when Marxism is perfect).

In the end, I expect we'll probably see a shift towards capital gains taxes, higher resource rents, transactional taxes (ie. taxes on the purchase or sale of bonds and shares) and other such mechanisms, and while lots of corporate interests will kick up a mighty storm, but there's little choice in the matter. At some point, robots will do a great deal of the work.

Comment Re: where does all this money come from? (Score 1, Insightful) 323

Just because people pay you for your services doesn't mean you create more than you consume. Perhaps you have some sort of serious illness, which means your health insurance provider may be paying you more than you are paying them. Perhaps you have enough write offs to heavily reduce your actual taxable income, meaning others are actually paying more tax than you.

But do you really pay enough money in taxes that it covers the building of the road past your house, pay for the wages and equipment of the firefighters who may have to put out your fire? There's an entire infrastructure out there that is paid for by the economic output of an entire society, and the idea that somehow anyone, even a billionaire, can claim responsibility for a significant fraction of it is absurd.

Comment Re: Ontario, largest subnational debtor on the pla (Score 1) 323

It's called taxes. We can debate which taxes would be best, but presumably if someone is making something, whether it be with human beings, robots or some combination, they also have sales, which means there are any number of financial transactions which can be taxed. Pick your poison; corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, excise taxes, etc. etc. etc. In the end, money is just a means of counting value.

Comment Re:Wow. (Score 1) 172

Yes Sir, that's another one of our great hits! Between you me and the fence post, we're also looking into commissioning a pilot for a new show called NCIS:Cyber, featuring the Naval Criminal Intelligence agencies that protect our brave Marines from hackers.

Also, I don't know if you like to laugh (who doesn't?) but we're looking for some top notch comedy writers for our humorous look at the "science" world, The Big Bang Theory. If you think you have what it takes, and are familiar with the kinds of shows nerds watch, like The Star Trek, and Firebug, send us your resume and some samples of your work, and maybe you can join our writing team!

- LM

Comment Re:Still a dream (Score 1) 142

It's almost certainly a hell of a lot easier to build a self-driving flying car than it is to build a self driving regular car. Regular cars have to follow roads, watch for people in unexpected places, adapt to road works, etc. Flying cars just need a rough direction to go in, and the ability to detect obstacles, with three dimensions to move around in to dodge them.

If that weren't the case, and we weren't able to create a self driving technology, I'd still question the logic that it's somehow more difficult to manually control something like this than it is a regular car. Why? What makes it harder?

Comment Agreemsg (Score 1) 142

It's more of a flying motorcycle, except without any of the advantages of a motorcycle. Presumably the advantages of being able to fly outweigh them, but if you're only allowed to operate over water, you'd probably be better served by a boat. It's a toy. The only time it seems like it would have any actual utility is if you live in some place where you're not allowed to move quickly on the water, but they'd still allow you to operate one of these. Which I suppose could exist... somewhere?

Comment Re:FSF = not practical (Score 1) 152

the free software idealism has lost and will never win

It's becoming more popular in the biology / medical research community, as people start to understand the importance of reproducible and open research.

I though the whole idea of science was reproducible and open research. Also, having more of a natural science than CS background, I've always viewed FOSS as the application of scientific principles to software. Unfortunately, I've come across closed software in fields such as molecular modelling and fluid dynamics. It's an interesting turnaround if scientists have to learn the basics again from software guys.

Comment Re:Wow. (Score 1) 172

Hi, sorry to butt in but I'm Leslie Moonves, the President of CBS. After reading this, I'm convinced you're the right person to become the new showrunner of our hit show "<\Scorpion". You obviously know the cyber, which makes you more than qualified. Please email me as soon as possible.

PS: You guys like being paid in "Bitcons", right?

Slashdot Top Deals

Work continues in this area. -- DEC's SPR-Answering-Automaton

Working...