Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



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

Comment Re:Anti-Hillary is not Pro-Trump (Score 1) 847

If you live anywhere but the few swing states, a vote for anyone BUT a third party is throwing away your vote. You won't make any difference in the outcome of the election (because you're not in a swing state), AND you won't make any difference in either party's policies (which they adapt to court voters who defect to third parties). All you're doing is voting for the status quo, in which case you may as well have not voted.

Comment Re:come on, you can read (Score 1) 424

The Supreme Court isn't responsible for anything but the proper enforcement of incorporation, which is plainly spelled out in codified law in the Fourteenth Amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

If anything, they have interpreted against the literal meaning of that, which has the implication that states have only the same claims and powers (the inverse of privileges and immunities) as Congress, and thus conversely (when combined with the ninth and tenth amendments) people have privileges and immunities against the vast majority of laws that state governments pass.

In other words, go down the list of enumerated powers for Congress. The ninth and tenth amendments spell out that those are the only kinds of things Congress can pass laws about, and all other action or inaction on the part of the people or the states is permitted. Then the fourteenth amendment says the states are as limited as Congress, which makes virtually everything on the part of the people permitted. Not actually everything, but a lot more than is actually permitted in practice.

User Journal

Journal Journal: I decided to submit a story again

I found what I thought was great story. I submitted it and what a change in the process now. Instead of it getting rejected in 30 seconds it has been on the fire hose for over a month. It quickly turned orange ( I still don't know what that means ) and stayed there. I guess the story is dead in the water.

I'm sure it will get deleted so here is the story for the 2 people who accidentally ended up here.

Submission + - Five surprising ways AI could be a part of our lives by 2030 (sciencemag.org)

sciencehabit writes: Artificial intelligence (AI) has gradually become an integral part of modern life, from Siri and Spotify’s personalized features on our phones to automatic fraud alerts from our banks whenever a transaction appears suspicious. Defined simply, a computer with AI is able to respond to its environment by learning on its own—without humans providing specific instructions. A new report from Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, outlines how AI could become more integrated into people’s lives by 2030, and recommends how best to regulate it and make sure its benefits are shared equally. Here are five examples—some from this report—of AI technology that could become a part of our lives by 2030.

Comment Re:Clickbait troll much? (Score 2) 629

The point of the 'stick it in an index fund' comparison is that that kind of investment reflects the average kind of return that other players in the market manage to make on average, and if your own investing activity doesn't even beat that, then you're hardly some kind of genius business paragon, because you're not even doing as well as the average business, as if you had let average businesses use your money instead they would have done more with it than you managed.

Comment Re:Unions are needed! (Score 1) 338

Unions don't have the power to prohibit you from having a job per se. They only have the power to negotiate exclusive contracts with employers; just like you could negotiate an exclusive contract with an employer to be their sole [whatever], if you had the leverage to get them to agree to that (like if, say, you were the sole proprietor of a prestigious subcontracting company, and they wanted your services badly enough to give you all their jobs if you demanded it). Employers are free to not employ unions, if they're willing to forego the labor pool in that union and only use non-union labor. Or, you know, they could negotiate with another union instead, just like anyone in the non-union labor pool can join together into another union and try to outcompete the first union for contracts.

The mirror image of this exists on the employer's side too. A local orange grower is free to go it solo and just sell his oranges at the farmer's market or something, and try to compete against big names like Sunkist; or, he could join with Sunkist (which is nothing but a cooperative of individual growers), and sell his oranges through them. Many sellers of commodities work that way, many individual sellers joining together into a unified brand to sell their product together, because that gives them a huge advantage over any one individual seller. (And for each individual seller participating too, it comes with disadvantages similar to those that union workers face, namely just being one interchangeable piece of a larger whole and not being able to fight for any special treatment). The only place where that kind of thing doesn't make sense is when artificial monopolies due to intellectual property make it absurd to even speak of; it's not like someone else could try (however vainly) to compete with Apple in the market for iPhones, so of course anyone who wants to sell iPhones has to join up with Apple to do so. But if that weren't so -- if anyone could just build and sell identical iPhones -- you would still expect to see individual iPhone makers eventually banding together for the competitive advantage, just like commodity sellers do, and just like laborers do in unions.

Comment Re:Really? (Score 1) 338

I was very close to calling this insightful, thinking that of course it would be trivially easy to get yourself fired for cause (by not showing up, after you found another job that you're showing up to instead, of course), but then it struck me that the converse would be equally true... they wouldn't have to fire you, they could just indefinitely delay delivery of your paychecks until you... "quit for cause" I guess would be the converse? After hiring someone else to "help" you, of course; someone whose paychecks were not getting delayed, who's perfectly capable of picking up the slack after you quit for their breach of contract.

In reality either of those -- accepting pay without returning any work, or accepting work without returning any pay -- would be considered a breach of the contract and actionable in court. If they weren't, it would be no different from at-will employment; you could effectively (though nominally not) quit, or they could effectively (though nominally not) let you go, whenever you or they felt like, without repercussion.

Comment Re: It's not just that. (Score 3, Interesting) 338

"At home" (parents home) isn't an option for many people, and I've known people, student back in college who had no cars and so couldn't live as far from campus as I could, who paid $500/mo EACH to split a fucking bedroom with two other people. Or people like my disabled mother who for the past year until this month was paying $700/mo out of her $900/mo income to split a room with two other strangers each paying the same as her because that is the only kind of place that someone without the savings to put a deposit down can get.

Being poor is stupidly fucking expensive.

Comment Re:Clickbait troll much? (Score 3, Interesting) 629

he's successful, in large part, because he knows what to sell, how to sell, and how to get it done.

He's "successful" because he started out with an enormous pile of money and hasn't burned through it all yet. If he had stuck it in an index fund and done nothing at all creative with it, he'd have seen better returns than any of his actual endeavors.

Slashdot Top Deals

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Working...