Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Comment $20 trillion in debt? (Score 1) 47

So now we're going to have stories about US debt? We've gone for years and years here at good 'ol Slashdot without much mention of the crazy growth in US debt and the chronic deficits we run, year after year, good economy or not. But let Trump get elected and all the sudden we're talking about the debt! Oh crap, spending bad because inflation and debt and stuff!

Google reveals one Slashdot mention of US national debt in Oct. 2008 [1] related to the "Debt Clock" overflowing and needing another digit, and one other story in 2011 about some federal "Debt Reduction Super Committee" [2] that "failed" to come up with any savings. No other demonstrative mention on Slashdot of the $9.3 trillion in debt racked up during the last eight years.

At least we're talking about it again. Hello libtards; yes, the borrow and spend spree has been huge and the US deficit is out of control. I know you missed that for the last couple terms since the "news" sites you frequent — such as Slashdot — never mentioned it to you, but there it is; $20 trillion and counting.


Comment Inflation or Rally? (Score 3, Informative) 47

Driven by Trump's 'Spending Binge' and Dollar Rally

The two offered reasons seem to be mutually exclusive... Either we see inflation — as Trump's government prints money to finance the feared "binge" (which is oh so different from the wise Government Spending of the Obama era). Such printing may cause an inflation with dollar falling against other currencies — including BitCoin. In this case, BitCoin may, indeed, rise in value.

Or we see dollar "rally" — rise in value against other currencies, including BitCoin.

So, which is it?

When inflation rises the Federal Reserve may raise interest rates to bring it under control. This causes the dollar to appreciate because it would be seen as an attractive currency for foreign investors.

I don't think, a raising of rates ever reversed inflation in the history of Federal Reserve — it can only slow it down. They would not even seek to stop it, considering the value of 1-2% per year "normal" (that's a tax on wealth, BTW).

Comment Re:Great! (Score 1) 160

You are forgetting the atmospheric mess they release, which is not factored in to the prices. If fossil fuels included all their costs in their product they wouldn't be nearly as competitive.

No, I'm not "forgetting" that; I've looked at that data and concluded that it is already accounted for. In any case, those are not the same as "subsidies".

But feel free to try to do the calculation yourself and then try to make a compelling argument.

Comment Bogus link (Score 1) 3

Though the submission claims to link to a piece by Scott Adams, it points to someone responding to Scott instead.

That is borderline dishonest. Down-modding the submission as "notthebest". The actual blog-entry by the Dilbert-creator is here.

Comment Yeah, and I made a car too! (Score 0) 89

All I had to do was attach the wheels conveniently laid out next to the hubs for me already and it was done!

Seriously, I'm getting tired of the reduction of the art programming in the public eye down to something any idiot can do. Any idiot can't do it - what they can do is plug some coloured preprogrammed very high level game blocks together on screen to produce some piss awful "game" whose gameplay would have been embarrasingly simple on an Atari 2600.

Comment An Actual Comment About the Article (Score 1) 63

Since every other post seems to be eye-rollinging inept trolls or meta-commentary about gender along the full spectrums, I thought I'd actually pos about the content since I read most of the article before I saw it on Slashdot...

It's more interesting than you might think as the people polled are from different technical fields, so the answers are a lot more varied than you usually get in a predictive piece.

If you take a step back though what is really interesting is how much the whole thing together looks like the parable of the blind men and the elephant, each describing only the part they could feel.. The actual future we reach by 2027 will be a really odd mash of all the answers given, where a breakthrough in any number of fields could change the dominance of one answers probability over the others..

Personally I hold out for the dark horse of computational biology taking the forefront by 2027. Perhaps that ship at the end of System Shock 2 was... US!

Comment Re:Michael Flynn Jr believes it (Score 1) 740

Is there any reply you could give to the question "why would you do that" that wouldn't make you sound kind of gay for Trump?

Why? Because the primary job of a president is to negotiate, coordinate, and manage people, not to solve differential equations. Hillary's performance in dealing with people has been dismal, even those (or in particular those) who know her personally.

Furthermore, the "friendly simpleton" and the "smart man/woman" are merely carefully constructed political personas and don't reflect actual intelligence anyway; Democrats like to present themselves as super-smart technocrats, while Republicans like to present themselves as folksy and down-to-earth. George W. Bush's SAT score (a good proxy for intelligence) seems to have been substantially higher than Bill Clinton's, for example.

Comment You have got to be joking (Score 2) 63

*virtue_signal*I don't mind these are all women, I think it's great.*virtue_signal*

However, how many times on Facebook now have I seen an image of "Tumps Economic Team" noting that it's all men and a few of them named Steve to boot? (Never mind that he has already appointed a few women for various roles, or that he won the election because of a team of women)

You seriously do not think MS would be roasted if in this ay and age they came out with a think piece like this, all from men?

Heck, you are doing that RIGHT NOW.

Comment TODAY's weather is predictable (Score 0) 79

> Weather cannot reliably be forecasted, and anyone who's paid attention knows this.

Even just a radar map alone is sufficient to predict what the weather will be like *today*. Predicting a week out, you may as well just use the long-term average (summer will probably be hot).

Global warming is of course an entirely different ball of wax. Based on my efforts to find the most objective information I could find, it appears to be a lot like Saint Nickolas - a real thing, with a LOT of hype and fiction built up around it.

Comment Re:Enjoy your mass insurrection/civil war, CEOs. (Score 1) 508

My position is that if we get the government out of business, out of money and out of interest rates, allow the people to be free from government oppression, get rid of income and wealth taxes and get rid of government sponsored wars and all other forms of redistribution then the economy can accommodate any number of workers because automation is not free.

Automation is a form of capital investment, some forms of automation are simpler than others. Writing a script to automate server restart and network configuration is much simpler than acquiring a humanoid android capable of arbitrary tasks. It's not impossible, it's just expensive.

A humanoid android will have an upfront cost comparable to other machinery and any company has a choice to incur that cost or to avoid it by hiring some employees and having operational costs as opposed to capital costs.

Capital costs are more difficult to justify for a company anyway because they are much larger than any operational costs. Putting together a fully automated factory takes an effort and a cost, putting together a partially automated factory can be done much faster and the operational costs would be much lower than the initial capital investments into a fully automated factory. Of-course over time more and more could be automated in a factory, my position is that in a free market capitalist system there is no reason why there shouldn't be more factories started by businesses if they had access to some capital savings.

In today's environment there is very little capital savings in the system available to any new businesses, the investments are absorbed by the giant government borrowing and spending machine and the fake ratings provided by the bought rating agencies are not helping the matter, making the government debt look much more attractive than any private investment because it *seems* that government debt is risk free.

Of-course in reality government debt is not simply *not* risk free, it is the riskiest of all assets.

As to communism, obviously it never worked and always caused mass starvation, mass murder, mass oppression, mass suffering. It will not be different in the future, people are not ants, those of us capable of accruing massive amounts of wealth are not doing it to give it all away, they are doing it to build empires, which makes perfect sense, that's our destiny - the most capable of us build empires. Emperors can be charitable but they do not share power and giving away power is a rare thing.

So AFAIC the struggles between those of us who can and those of us who cannot will continue and this struggle and since the masses are unable to accept that they are not the ones occupying the thrones they will always end up revolting.

Of-course in the future revolting against emperors will be as dangerous (if not more dangerous) than in the past. Mass surveillance and robots, drones, automated armies will be able to put down massive revolts.

I think the only way for us not to keep murdering each other is to ensure that our system is based around free market capitalism, because free market capitalism at the very least provides tolerable (and possibly pleasurable) life styles even for people who are not exactly on the top of the highest of pyramids.

Comment Re:Great! (Score 1) 160

Of course, since the US is all about fair competition-you know, free market and all-then we can safely remove government subsidies to other forms of power such as oil or coal as well. We wouldn't want one segment of an industry working with an unfair advantage now, would we?

Indeed, favor abolishing all energy subsidies (as well as all agricultural subsidies for that matter).

There is some disagreement about US energy subsidies. By one accounting, renewable energy is subsidized by about $7.3b, while fossil fuel is subsidized by about $3.2b, by another accounting (taking into account tax credits, a dubious proposition), fossil fuels are "subsidized" by about $72b, while renewable fuels are subsidized by about $29b. Since only about 10% of US energy comes from renewable sources, that means that renewables are subsidized between 5 and 20 times as much per unit of energy as fossil fuels.

Comment Re:Subsidies and marketing (Score 1) 160

First off the competing fossil fuels receive substantial subsidies from the government

Google is saying that "renewables are increasingly becoming the lowest cost option" taking into account current cost structures. Furthermore, fossil fuels are not, actually, very much subsidized per unit of energy.

Worse, fossil fuels do not have to pay for a large portion of the pollution (including carbon) that they create so their prices are artificially low.

Again, Google is saying that "renewables are increasingly becoming the lowest cost option" taking into account current cost structures, so even if that argument were valid, it would be irrelevant.

Only rich companies like Google can do it today and they do it as a marketing expense more than anything else.

So, in effect, you're saying that Google is lying: renewable energy is still substantially more expensive than energy from fossil fuel. Thanks for clearing that up.

Slashdot Top Deals

But it does move! -- Galileo Galilei