Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
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:Correcting myself (Score 1) 436

There is still a first amendment issue.

No, it is not. The 1st amendment does not legally "protect" you for lying. When you are saying "I'm an engineer", but the law defines an engineer and you don't conform to it, and the law defines misrepresenting yourself as an engineer as a crime, then you are legally liable for your act.

Actually it does. If it didn't protect lies it wouldn't protect any speech. All it would take to silence anything is have a few amenable people decide unpopular speech were lies and boom there goes your right to speak.

Comment Re:Oh noes (Score 1) 238

Capitalism will work better if sellers are forbidden to discriminate among buyers. It would be even better if buyers were forbidden to distinguish among sellers

First off, you are confusing capitalism with a free market. They explain different aspects of the economy.

That said, you then created a straw-man argument by providing what you consider a perfect free market and then shooing down why it is not economically realistic. I made no claim that a perfect free market is an achievable or even desirable situation. I merely provided a quid-pro-quo pithy aphorism to highlight different techniques each side of any economic exchange uses. If buyers want to take advantage of quick and easy access to price comparisons, they are hypocritical to also complain when sellers take advantage of similarly available information to perform price discrimination.

Comment Re:Oh noes (Score 1) 238

I'm confused. Exactly how does my asking another store for their price on a product somehow make it okay for a single store to charge different prices to different people for the exact same product?

If it helps to use an analogy, take offense and defense in any sport (sport may be a poor choice in Slashdot, but its the first that came to mind). Offense and defense and the rules which govern each both exist to create a competitive balance within the sport, but the techniques and rules used by each are almost always quite different. For instance if a linebacker tackles someone it is okay, but if an offensive lineman does the same it is a holding penalty.

Maintaining competitive balance does not mean everyone plays by the exact same rules. Each side plays by whatever rules are deemed necessary to maintain competitive balance.

In the case of a seller and buyer relationship, both sides are trying to maximize the value they extract from each sale. Buyers comparison shop, and sellers price discriminate. They are different tactics which are both used to level the playing field.

Comment Re:People hate each other more (Score 1) 306

Yeah, include all the relevant context. People who want to accuse Trump or anyone else of wrongdoing or "hatred" or whatever should be specific and make their case without taking things out of context or exaggerating. Please inform us.

The campaign is over, there's no need for salesmanship. What's the factual story?

Comment Re:Why won't the drug dealers and criminals just (Score 1) 491

As a counterexample, see alcohol, and the prices thereof.

Alcohol is just another sin taxed and regulated like tobacco. It is not a counter-example, it is another example. The fact is, legalizing things doesn't remove them from criminal activity, and it doesn't remove the profit from producing them illegally.

No, it changes the part where they are robbing a bank because they need the money to buy stuff.

It doesn't change the part where bank robbers do it for the money to buy things they think they are owed by society. UBI will just be another thing they are owed, along with the large screen TV and nice car and whatever else, and banks won't be able to fire all the security guards.

Sometimes it's drugs (lots of crack addicts wind up robbing banks)

Geeze, I hope the people who design UBI systems don't accept the concept that "buying crack" is a need that has to be covered by UBI.

Comment Re: Ontario, largest subnational debtor on the pla (Score 1) 491

Video games and the internet are way cheaper than a lot of basic amenities that an UBI would have to provide enough to cover.

If people have to give up basic amenities to pay for video games, then they cannot really afford the video games. And if they don't have to give up the basic amenities to pay for video games, then it isn't a BASIC income.

(Also, internet is basically a necessary utility in the modern age).

Not to people living on UBI, and not to a very large number of people today. You find it useful, I find it useful, but like is not need.

Comment Re: minwage $11.40-$9.90 (Score 1) 491

If you are demanding the equivalent of $18/hour after UBI, you will be replaced by someone who is currently unemployed and only demands $10-15/hour after UBI.

The employee doesn't care about "the equivalent of", he cares about incremental costs. He gets UBI no matter what, it isn't a consideration when he costs out his labor. If an employer is going to pay only $5/hr, why bother? Is YOUR time worth only $5/hr to YOU?

Yes, someone who is in critical need of money will work for that amount, but with UBI, who are these people in critical need of money? That's what UBI covers.

if you value any level of comfort then you will need some form of a job, even if just part time,

Even if just $5/hr? No, the fact is, there will be a lot fewer people who will value their time so little, which means there is NOT a larger labor pool for the employer, and thus UBI is NOT a good thing for employers. Sure, a few people will take that job, but not as many as would take a job at $10/hr.

but placing a heavier burden on the poor and lower-middle classes will be counter-productive.

You are the only one using the word "heavier". Someone has to pay the taxes, and that includes people who work -- to pay UBI to those who aren't.

The impacts you mention are temporary anyway.

Yes, I agree. As fewer people work and have money to pay for Starbucks or McD or lots of other optional things, there will be fewer jobs to produce those things, and thus employers will be hiring fewer people. But their profits go down permanently, and the pool of available labor goes does permanently, so where is this wonderful benefit to these employers?

Slashdot Top Deals

The IBM purchase of ROLM gives new meaning to the term "twisted pair". -- Howard Anderson, "Yankee Group"