Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:"Lags" (Score 2) 468

I suppose if other countries want to be suckers, pay extra buy a substandard product, and have their citizens pay a tax to make Americans wealthy then I'm fine with that. In the meantime, the U.S. should definitely cancel all subsidies and let economics work its magic. Without subsidies, it's about as "irreversible" as flying cars, the population bomb, or the global cooling predictions of the 1970s.

Comment Re:Lots of sophistication required here (Score 1) 207

Potentially they would also be paranoid enough to simply disable sound, or at least run through some kind of headphones/speakers with a toggle. I can't even remember the last time that I browsed a webpage with my sound enabled. While this type of attack does seem devious, it also seems to be grasping at straws for any possible advantage.

Comment Re:It's past time. (Score 5, Insightful) 1430

Cook up all the justifications you want about why Trump 'won' the election and why he should be president.

How about -- he won the electoral contest? You know, the one set of rules that actually counts? The one system that was perfectly okay before the election, until now that some of the losers are sore and are concocting all the justifications for a change in the outcome after-the-fact?

Democracy is a system whereby elected representatives are chosen by winning the popular vote not a gerrymandered system where you elect a group of functionaries who then vote for the runner up.

Actually, if you live in the United States, then you don't live in a pure democracy. You are in a democratically elected representative republic. This means, by design, that sometimes the majority does not get its way.

Comment Re:From TFA (Score 2) 323

Yeah just like how The Population Bomb determined that the peak population will be in 1990 before it starts dwindling due to food shortages and massive starvation. And also how Peak Oil will happen in the year 2000 and the price of oil will never go down after that.

Oooops, both of those alarmist theories didn't happen. It turns out that it DOES matter if the numbers and science are real, otherwise it's just scare tactics designed to convince people to assign more political power to those who don't deserve it. AGW didn't turn out to be as dire as predicted and is failing to sufficiently scare voters, so now the alarmists want to ignore the outcomes and move on to the next crisis -- YEARLY RESOURCE ALLOTMENT?

Comment Re:Soviet Union tried it (Score 1) 519

Even in its extreme form, communism recognizes that some people need more than others.

I think you meant to say "deserves", not "needs". Suppose a doctor and a waitress each work 8 hours a day. Can you explain why the doctor might "need" more than the waitress? I actually think I am familiar with communism. Usually the theorists and advocates espouse equality at first, before they get into power. The pragmatic and unequal distribution part is usually reserved for after the communists take control of all the guns. That the article does consider some monetary incentive for the more productive workers up-front certainly is surprising.

Comment Re:So what? (Score 1) 109

Even for the hotspots near the convention, the researchers don't appear to have distinguished between Republican delegates connecting, and all others connecting such as venue workers, media personnel, protesters, or simply random citizens walking nearby. As for the airport hotspot, I somehow doubt that convention delegates spent the majority of their time hanging out at the airport, several miles from the venue. This experiment undoubtedly captured a lot of non-delegates.

Comment Re:Soviet Union tried it (Score 1) 519

I'm willing to accept that, but tell me how; and this blog post that merely repeats the mistakes of the past is not succeeding to do that.

I'll never be willing to accept communism, because it has always failed to account for human behavior. The communists have hoped that simply by being smarter, or more intelligent, or having a bigger planning committee, or accounting for more variables, and now delegating authority to their computer model that they will achieve success. No amount of explaining will convince me, however, because communism has never appropriately accounted for human behavior, greed, needs, wants, incentives, or creativity. These things are a part of human nature; communism has tried to defeat human nature; capitalism has sought to work alongside it.

Surprisingly, the article does recognize that equal distribution to everyone is a problem, and seems to advocate unequal distribution near the end of the article. That, to me, isn't communism, but simply fiat redistribution-ism so that someone can gain popularity and control. And also I disagree with the article's assessment that dis-incentivizing the wealthy would not cause a mass-exodus of workers from those positions.

Comment Re:Soviet Union tried it (Score 1) 519

It seems like communists aren't willing to accept that 100 years of experimentation have always failed to produce the desired result, that if they could control the economy then they would achieve higher standards of living than the capitalists. You're right that the Soviets already tried it, but modern day communists will reject your observation, and claim that the communists of yesteryear simply weren't smart enough. Decades of failure prove nothing! Surely the communists of today are smarter and will succeed if you give them enough authority. Now we see yet another iteration, where this time we'll build a supercomputer which will UNQUESTIONABLY be smart enough to solve all of the communist economic problems, just please please PLEASE give the communists more power.

Slashdot Top Deals

Swap read error. You lose your mind.