Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:I believe you've already found tge problem. (Score 1) 461

This is the problem with your analog headphone jack -- there's no vendor lock-in possible! This grievous error must be stopped.

Apple almost had this going on with the original iPhone... And what could Apple do? ... Apple can make money without lifting a finger now... I can't wait to hear how Apple spins this as being a good thing at the next iPhone announcement in a few months here.

Yeah, Apple sure are horr- wait, what was the summary?

In the Android camp, phones like Lenovo's Moto Z and Moto Z Force and China's LeEco have already scrapped the 3.5mm headphone jack; to listen to music on the company's three latest phones, users need to plug in USB Type-C headphones, go wireless, or use a dongle.

So, Apple has done nothing yet, while Lenovo and LeEco have, and yet all you rant about is how terrible Apple is, and not them. So, which is it: hypocrite, or Android propagandist?

Comment Re:because it's universal (Score 1) 461

That's exactly the problem. The companies want proprietary. Hell, this goes back the earliest Macs, with their unique mouse, keyboard, and printer ports, and their scuzzy drive connectors..

SCSI, or the small computer system interface, was a set of standards created by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), not Apple. You want a unique port? Look at PS/2, created specifically by and for IBM and IBM-compatibles.

Comment Re: Read some Engels (Score 1, Insightful) 449

Marx and Engels big mistake was in not realizing that despite the abuse heaped upon them, the powers that be at that time recognized at the very least that the notion of class struggle as a driver of history had at least some merits. Marx fully expected a series of revolutions in the latter half of the 19th century, and in some cases it almost came true, but then suddenly you see several nations, even the Austro-Hungarian Empire, for goodness sake, enacting liberal constitutions. In Britain, in particular, within 20 years of the Communist Manifesto's release, the Reform Act of 1867 greatly expanded the voting franchise, enfranchising a large number of working class members. This inoculated a good deal of Europe against any kind of Socialist Revolution.

What went really wrong for Marx's economic and political theories was that first Communist states were fundamentally agrarian states; Russia and China. These, even by Marx's own theories, were not yet at a point of economic evolution that they should become Communist, and in fact, the Communist rulers of these states, to keep with Marxist ideas of evolution, had to introduce vast industrial programs, almost trying to create a Bourgeois middle class just so they could fulfill the checkboxes on Communist revolution. The industrialized states that became Communist were pretty much the states that the Soviet Union forced into its sphere after the Second World War, and who had initially gained their industrial capacity through fundamentally capitalist means.

No one has ever actually seen a Communist revolution the way Marx foresaw such a revolution happening, mainly because, as I say above, the Western nations, whether intentionally or by accident, liberalized sufficiently that the working classes could join political parties, or form new ones (like the Labour Party in Britain). I like to imagine that Disraeli, crafty fox that he was, was at least partially cognizant of the potential for a revolution if Westminster didn't let at least some of the lower classes in, and it wasn't all about just taking the piss out of Gladstone.

Comment Re:Read some Engels (Score 3, Insightful) 449

You are aware that the last three or so generations, at least in the West, are overall the richest human beings that have ever lived. Yes, some are a lot richer than others, but the mean still is so much greater than the past that it's pretty stunning. Only the most impoverished go without food, and even the relatively poor have what can only be described as luxuries.

That's not to say any of it is perfect, or that there aren't people with boatloads of money that really should have that money. There are issues surrounding tax shelters (legal or illegal), corporate influence on politics, and many other issues, but to imagine those just go away because you produce some new economic system is absurd. The one thing Communism did teach the world is that there is always a way for people to get rich and use their wealth to influence the system. Changing the rules just means the greedy and powerful find some new way to game the system, or, if you get rid of the wealthy, some new group rises to the challenge and supplants them.

So I'm all for a fairer society, but we've seen enough "utopian" systems to realize that there is no such thing as Utopia, and trying to bring up the lower classes by bringing down the upper classes never ends up the way you thought it would.

As The Who so aptly put it, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..."

Comment Re: Oh boy (Score 2) 357

Well, unless of course, the actual citizen happens to be a child of Mexican immigrants, and happens to be the judge in a lawsuit where some of his victims, er, students, are suing him for bilking them out of money.

And as he will soon discover, if he manages to become President, for all this talk of how bad illegal Mexican immigrants are, the agriculture industry of the border states would collapse without them.

Comment Re:Oh boy (Score 4, Insightful) 357

You understand that in the normal course of action about the only thing a VP does is break tie votes in the Senate and, on the very rare occasion, when the President has to be put under for a root canal, temporarily becomes Command in Chief. Other than that, the only purpose of a VP is during an election, to try to ingratiate a President with demographics that might otherwise be fence-sitting. Picking someone with some social conservative views undercuts Trump, a man who though he may ape them from time to time, isn't really a social conservative at all.

Comment Re:Kicking millions of Chinese out of jobs... (Score 2) 137

Part of the cost of automation being less than labor is you create unemployment. This is fine--it's how progress works--and the displaced labor creates a gap between prior cost and new cost, which eventually leads to lower prices (prices don't keep with inflation, in part because it's impossible to hold all prices at the same buying-power equivalent in an economy where the relative price of everything constantly shifts thanks to population expansion, money supply increase, and productivity gains all interacting, and the buying-power total doesn't go up until the price of something goes down).

If you create 0.1% unemployment, no big deal. That gets washed away as the workforce turns over; give it a few months to a year and there's no evidence of that blip--save that we're all a little richer. Those people got new jobs, because we're buying more stuff thanks to that 0.1% difference, and somebody needs to make and move that stuff.

If you create 40% unemployment, that's a problem. Things got cheaper... okay? Who is buying all these cheaper things? Never mind that the money hasn't moved down into the hands of the unemployed (400 times more excluded than when they were just 0.1%); the people still working just found that nearly half their work isn't needed anymore, and you know what that means: they get laid off, too.

It's economically feasible when the cost of new technology is lower, and when the risk proposition across growth spans that technology in an uptake not significantly faster than re-employment. The economy has to respond to lower costs by offering lower prices, which businesses don't do unless they're pressured (e.g. competition, desire to get 5% on 100,000,000 units instead of 15% on 10,000,000 units, etc.). The universal competition--that consumers have limited money, and that every product bought is taken from that pool, thus all products are in competition with all other products--takes some time to launder the changes and produce a fresh, new economy.

China has labor shortages and might just be in a position where the reduced labor shifts chinese labor around such that the outcome is 2% or 5% or 8% unemployment, rather than 40% or 80% unemployment. If it cuts their production costs by 20%, that's a hell of a draw for import labor--China's financial position becomes that people will trade them something (to be determined at a later date; here's money as an IOU) for something China can produce cheaper than the buyer. In the mean time, places like America suddenly see a 20% drop in the price of all kinds of goods, and can buy more; this means we need more shipping, more retail operators, more people at VISA managing your accounts, and so forth. It means poor people spend a smaller chunk of their income on clothes and cell phones (which they probably need today), and more on food (which puts demands on local refineries, chemical producers, municipal water systems, John Deere, and farmers). It means more jobs here in America.

China would get richer and America would get richer just by China reducing the cost of manufacture, at least in a projection where China doesn't create an unemployment crisis in its own country.

Submission + - SPAM: A Basic Income is a Trillion Dollars Cheaper

bluefoxlucid writes: Last week, Slashdot covered a story by some bloke named Robert Greenstein claiming a Universal Basic Income would cost around $3 trillion. Like all such reports, the report uses simplistic policies and bad math: it assumes we give every single American $10,000 more than they have now, with no remediation of existing services or the tax system at large.

In response, I’ve crunched some numbers to demonstrate the real impact of a Universal Social Security, both on poverty and on taxes. The short and long of it is it costs over a trillion dollars less, not three trillion more.

Link to Original Source

Slashdot Top Deals

"Catch a wave and you're sitting on top of the world." - The Beach Boys