Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



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

Comment Re:Pure capitalism is a failed ideology (Score 1) 1080

So do all countries. That's because poorer people tend to commit more crimes.

True.

Unfortunately the United States incarcerate people 8 times more than Europe for example.

Unfortunately

the United States "imprisons a larger percentage of its black population than South Africa did at the height of apartheid"

Unfortunately

in 2008 the USA had around 24.7% of the world's 9.8 million prisoners

In fact, in 2008 the US

incarceration rate exceeded the average incarceration levels in the Soviet Union during the existence of the infamous Gulag system

So, yeah, singling out the US for unjustly jailing people is not random and perfectly justified by facts, if we don't cherry pick, and as you said, these are very disproportionately poor because they tend to commit more crime and because they can't afford good lawyers and because they can't afford good education.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Comment Re:Pure capitalism is a failed ideology (Score 1) 1080

Let's see:
  • I did not say that capitalist society is divided in classes like proletariat and bourgeoisie, but that's the basis of Marxism
  • I said that capitalism will lead smoothly towards an economy of abundance, whereas Marxism clearly states that an actual revolution is needed to achieve a transitional state towards the utopian classless society it describes.
  • Marxism wants collective ownership of the means of production, I never said that's useful or needed. In fact I fully think there's a lot of good in capitalism (but that's not pure capitalism)

No, I am not describing Marxism. In fact, every time I discuss this with a Marxist they disagree deeply with me...

Comment Re:Pure capitalism is a failed ideology (Score 1) 1080

A society where basic and (former) luxury needs are given out for free will find new and still scarce luxuries

We are way into the long tail of diminishing returns there.

One thing is saying "i want a coat made of better luxury material because it insulates better and it's more comfy, instead of the basic free version which is crappy and itchy". Another is "I want the megagizmo superinflatable coat instead of the luxury material one". Not only the second example shows drastically less objective improvements, it also hints to how advertisement is needed to inflate demand for high-priced crap which is not objectively better at all. Remove the ads, this kind of demand collapses.

Comment Pure capitalism is a failed ideology (Score 3, Insightful) 1080

There are two objective problems with pure capitalism:
  1. Morality and redistribution of wealth. Any economics philosophy should aim at maximizing well being. Capitalism favors the accumulation of capital, or, basically, draining resources from society. Remember servitude, aristocracy and the middle ages? Yeah, that's the end game of pure capitalism.
  2. The assumption that a free market solves all the problems. First of all, it doesn't work at all. In fact a purely free market leads to monopolies, which break its rules. So a free market needs a strong government to keep it free. Secondly, not all social problems are best solved through a free market. Things which are strategic to society might not be profitable to be run at best. In fact, in general infrastructure is best when not run by the free market because it needs to be neutral. Think of health, defense, basic transportation... they are naturally loss-leading, and not amenable to free market logic. You want free market defense? You get an industry that creates wars to increase their shareholder value... not morally acceptable at all.

Furthermore, pure capitalism is leading to its own death because progress is undermining some of the basics of capitalist economy, such as scarcity. Capitalism works because money is valuable. Money is valuable because you can buy stuff with it. Stuff is valuable because there's not enough to cover demand. In a society where basic needs are covered essentially for free, money accumulation becomes much less important. In a society where basic and luxury needs are given for essentially free, money accumulation is way less interesting or compelling to anyone. This, in the short term, leads to a society with an inflated artificial demand. Did you not notice the amount of ads you are subjected to? Yeah, that's why. Of course this is only a temporary solution to a structural problem. Market forces will make sure ads are minimized, and this is something which has a marginal cost of zero, so it will eventually be free for all, which is exactly what is happening with adblockers, and adblocker-blocker blockers. After that, demand will collapse and eventually we will move towards an economy of abundance, not of scarcity. I don't know what that will look like, but certainly it won't be capitalism or communism.

Submission + - SPAM: 2016 Stack Overflow dev survey finds react and rust are the most loved techs

Sklivvz writes: The annual 2016 Stack Overflow survey is out and here are the results: "JavaScript remains the most popular programming language in the world.
React is the fastest growing technology on Stack Overflow. Swift is exploding too, and Objective-C is in decline.
Rust is the most-loved programming language. A higher percentage of developers who program with it want to continue to do so more than any other programming language.
Visual Basic is the most dreaded language. A higher percentage of devs who program with it don’t want to continue with it more than any other programming language."

Link to Original Source

Comment Not a great article unfortunately. (Score 1) 293

I don't doubt there's bias against women, nor I want to mansplain the results at all. However I care deeply about good science and reliable facts. This article is not very good at showing clearly that this bias exists. Here are a few major problems with it:

1. Are the samples of women and men who post on GitHub representative of all open source programmers? I would think that women tend to contribute publicly less than man, and tend to disclose their gender less than men, and this probably biases the sample. The article doesn't attempt to analyze this, it merely assumes their sample is adequate.

2. The article says that both men and women get less pull requests accepted when their gender is identifiable, although this affects more women than men. The article does not compare the two values explicitly (in fact, it does not give the value for men at all), and it doesn't attempt to explain this effect -- it could well be that there's a confounding factor they haven't considered other then gender bias

3. Both men and women can accept and deny pull requests. Surely the gender of who accepts or denies the pull request is a factor that needs to be analyzed before the conclusion can be "there is gender discrimination"?

Comment Re:If only... (Score 2) 264

Stories like this contain at least part of the answer.

Only if stories like these happen in the science and technology fields and not elsewhere. It seems banal enough, albeit tragic, that it could have happened in any field.

A person in senior position trying to get their subordinates to bed? Shocking! I would never have imagined such a thing!</sarcasm>

Comment Re: News for nerds (Score 1) 866

You are completely misrepresenting science. Science works for continuous refinements. New discoveries and theories refine previous ones, and our understanding of nature improves without nullifying the previous knowledge. Nothing is overturned.

Thus it's blatantly false that science gives temporary answers. It certainly only provides an approximative model of reality, but generally a sane and useful one. Newton's law of gravity is still widely used to send people in space, even though it has been refined by Einstein and others. No one cares about "truth", besides religious people.

Religion, one the other hand, is blatantly made up stuff that is believed into in the face of tons of contrary evidence. It is not unrelated to science, in fact it makes tons of claims about the physical world. So far, any religious/magical claim that has been studied has turned out to be either blatantly false or ...not magic. Yet, people believe anyways. People go to Lourdes, even though it's statistically bad for them. People pray, even though it has no effect at all. At least in science, hypothesis are discarded once they are disproven.

Comment Re: News for nerds (Score 1) 866

You are completely misrepresenting science. Science works for continuous refinements. New discoveries and theories refine previous ones, and our understanding of nature improves without nullifying the previous knowledge.

Thus it's blatantly false that science gives temporary answers. It certainly only provides an approximation, but generally a sane and useful one. Newton's law of gravity is still widely used to send people in space, even though it has been refined by Einstein and others,

Religion, one the other hand, is blatantly made up stuff that is believed into in the face of tons of contrary evidence.

Slashdot Top Deals

Remember -- only 10% of anything can be in the top 10%.

Working...