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


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

Comment Re:Falling Between the Cracks (Score 1) 1052

Frankly, if you ultimately can't make due on a serious UBI program because you're 'bad with money' there should be some programs to get you to be better with money. Or perhaps a new business model will arise of people offering to 'manage' someone's UBI and in exchange provide them with food and shelter. But when all of that inevitably fails maybe those sorts of people are just the ones who need to be committed and made wards of the state. If you are not capable of surviving on your own when you are literally being given the means to do so, then there is something fundamentally wrong with you, and you should probably be getting mental health treatment. (Darwin would say you should die but I'm not quite that cruel)

Comment Re:Simplification or More Bureaucracy? (Score 1) 1052

I think the point is to scrap all welfare, SNAP included, and frankly even $700 a month is far from a livable wage in most of America. That wouldn't even cover rent on a 1 bedroom apartment in central MA. I can't even imagine trying to stretch that out in Boston or any of the bigger cities. I think $1500 a month (especially if it was untaxed) would be enough to support a modest lifestyle without stressing about meals or shelter. There would be some money left over for a person to save up, or to put towards things like schooling. It wouldn't give you the kind of money you need to take a trip to Paris whenever you feel like it, but it's enough that your basic needs are met, and if an emergency comes up (like sudden medical expenses) you don't need to beg or go into bankruptcy just to cover it.

Comment Re:I'm not entirely happy about this. (Score 4, Insightful) 113

If it weren't for the fact I'd be put on a government watchlist for the rest of my life, I might even suggest that perhaps the issue is more complex than we think.

Like almost everything, the issue IS more complex than we think. Drugs, for profit prisons, whether or not 'hitting your kids' is acceptable. You name a topic and I'm sure I can come up with a half dozen different sides to it. As for the government watch lists, I'm sure we're both on a couple dozen already. There's just the matter of 'is this an issue people care about right now'.

Comment Re:Should have satellite internet; not very smart (Score 1) 139

To be fair, everything indicated they would be able to get Comcast internet before they moved in, it wasn't until they signed the lease for the office space that they found out, no no they could not. And they did have internet of a sorts, AT&T dsl, which was at least as good if not better for their purposes than satellite internet would have been (not to say that DSL in this case is 'good' just that it's better than satellite).

Comment Re:Increase the punishment (Score 1) 292

Court records are not necessarily available online (partly because there is an enormous amount of data, and partly because the records aren't necessarily stored in a format that is digital friendly, there's a lot of paper still in use in the legal system). Also a lot of 'background check' type websites don't really do their due diligence to make sure the information they have is accurate (absolving themselves of that responsibility in their 'terms'), but they still fight to get top SEO ratings for search. Finally even if court documents are public record, I don't think that it should be 'easy' to look at them. Say you have a drug conviction from 20 years ago. Is that really relevant to a casual search of your name if you've been clean for 20 years? The records should still be there, and they should be accessible, but it shouldn't be 'easy', you should need very specific information about what type of record you're looking for, and why you're looking for it. Because you want to snoop on your neighbor isn't good enough.

Comment Re:um (Score 1) 303

How can "the belief that climate change is a fraud" a conspiracy theory when climate change has yet to be proven? Climate change can be proven to be false just by going threw all the research, we already know there are many things that are wrong and edited data to make it look real

*Citation needed*

I'll admit that I haven't gone through ALL the research, but the research I have seen is pretty compelling that climate change exists. NASA has some good and well cited evidence in support of it here but if you're one of those people who refuse to change your mind even in the face of overwhelming evidence, I doubt there's much I can do to change your mind on the subject.

Comment Re:Stream 11 (Score 1) 508

That fails requirement #3, it can't be assumed that the students have the technical know how to fix up a salvation army type computer.

Sure, a techie (even a poor techie) could make that work. But when something goes foo-bar on that laptop, the teacher doesn't have the time to provide the free tech support to make it work again.

Comment Re:4/5 in favor (Score 1) 755

I disagree with you on the size of said groups. But even if you are correct, and the number of 'lazy people' out number the number of people willing to work. So what, in the grand scheme of things, these are the sorts of people who would be on welfare or leeching off of family or whatever anyways, changing welfare to a minimum income doesn't change that; it just simplifies the process by which lazy people can be lazy, and makes it so people who are currently working in the bottom most rungs of society can reclaim some personal dignity.

As someone who worked at McDonald's for several years, I can honestly claim that I put up with some pretty shady business practices, and the bosses made me feel like I should be excited that I was making $7.75 an hour. But at the time I felt trapped, because I needed the job to support myself, so I couldn't just quit. I saw several other people in the same boat, or worse (single mothers who have to support themselves and their kids). If I knew I could count on a minimum income A) most companies probably wouldn't try pulling some of the shady crap, and B) if they did I would feel free to leave that job and know I was at least going to have a roof over my head until I found the next one.

Comment Re:4/5 in favor (Score 3, Informative) 755

The free money might be useless, but I doubt it'll mean nobody will work. If the minimum income is just barely enough to pay for food and shelter well that's all people really NEED, but most people will want more than just a house and food. Also, with some exception, most people are not housecats that are content to just laze about all day doing nothing, most people want to climb the social ladder, get a bigger house, a nicer tv, pay for cable, etc. And that means working. I will agree however that it might mean that businesses need to offer a decent wage to convince people to do bottom barrel work though.

Comment Re:knack for generating profoundly useless cards (Score 1) 104

I noticed that the network, now more fully trained, could generate meaningful, novel cards. However, it also had a knack for generating profoundly useless cards. Here are a few snippets from the output: * When $THIS enters the battlefield, each creature you control loses trample until end of turn.

Not a bonus, but plenty of creatures have slightly negative effects if they cost less to summon than their positive traits might suggest.

True, but having your own creatures lose trample is unusual as a drawback to a card, it's a very very situational penalty.

* Whenever another creature enters the battlefield, you may tap two untapped Mountains you control.

Weird, but if you're prevented from tapping mana sources for some reason...

Due to a combination of how the stack works, and the majority of mana sources having the timing priority it's pretty much impossible to prevent a player from tapping a mana source for mana. The best you can really do is force the timing of it so that it's not useful for your opponent to tap a source for mana, for example if you use a spell or effect that would cause an opponent's land to be tapped, they can always tap it to add it's mana to their mana pool before the effect that causes it to be tapped resolves. Now whether that mana is usable before it drains away at the end of a phase is up for debate, but you can't really be prevented from tapping for mana. Again the above card text falls into the category of 'this could be legal on a card but it's a weird card'

* 3, : Add 2 to your mana pool.

Useful if you're tricked into a large mana-burn situation. It effectively reduces all mana-burn down to 1.

Mana burn was removed in the 2010 rules update. So again this is a rather strange ability

* Legendary creatures can't attack unless its controller pays 2 for each Zombie you control.

Oddly specific, but not useless.

Agreed, still kind of a weird ability though.

Slashdot Top Deals

The difference between a career and a job is about 20 hours a week.