Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



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

Comment Re:so... (Score 2) 600

I don't know if it's a general rule for everyone, but I got called racist for opposing Obama's socialist tendencies in 2008 before he even became president, and was still campaigning. I got it regularly, and I don't care about the colour of his skin (any more than I care about the orange-tinge of Trump's skin).

I saw it so often that I can't believe anyone couldn't see it. In fact, if anything, it's that sort of knee-jerk name-calling of anyone who didn't fully embrace the Obama/Clinton progressive line that most likely cost HRC the election. Sure, people on the coasts didn't mind because they were intelligent enough and progressive enough to vote for Obama purely on the colour of his skin, or Clinton on the gender she identifies as, and were sorry for all their unearned privilege. But the people in the flyover states, even ones that traditionally have been Democrat strongholds, have apparently tired of this "hyperbole and untrue" experience. Except it's neither hyperbole nor untrue.

Personally, I'd rather Trump wasn't president. I suspect many, if not most, people who voted for Trump also would rather he wasn't president. However, when his opponent drops into name calling ("deplorables" likely did as much as anything to sink Clinton's campaign), most didn't see much choice.

I'm just hoping he's a one-term president at this point. But if the Democrats continue to blame everyone but themselves for their loss, I'm not holding my breath.

Comment Re:Proper Authorities (Score 1) 1321

In order to take it to court, I imagine one must have standing to sue. A single elector may have trouble proving standing, as their one vote, by itself, is unlikely to tilt the election. However, there's no disputing (I think) that Clinton would suffer irreparable harm, assuming the results are tampered. She has standing. The academics do not.

To disclaim bias, I say this happy that Clinton did not win. (But not happy that Trump won... sigh) As I've said before, I'd rather honesty and transparency than fraud, regardless of what that brings to light. If Clinton should have been the legal winner of those college votes, then she should have them, and should sue to get that done. Though I can understand a reluctance - undermining the fiction of votes counting also undermines the validity of future Democrat presidents, not just the current Republican president-elect, and her chances of winning are likely quite low. There's little upside to the challenge for her, and great downside for her party.

Comment Yes. (Score 3, Insightful) 361

As long as what they report on is true and unbiased, yes. I don't care if it's on the HRC campaign or the Trump campaign, as long as it is objectively true. I would rather the politicians were honest and transparent, and if it takes a foreign power to force it, I have a hard time complaining.

Leave the pontificating to the pundits. Journalists should merely report the truth.

And, no, I don't care for Hillary "embarrassing" herself. That may be truthful, but it's not any more germane to the discussion than Trump embarrassing himself (even though that gets reported on as well on a regular basis - we don't need Russian interference to see it). The juicy bits, such as it were, would be any case of unethical and/or illegal behaviour. I haven't really followed the leaks, so I don't know if there is any such bits in there. Ideally, all candidates would behave in perfectly ethical manners, but few do. I doubt HRC or Trump do, and that's what should be reported on.

The standard should be "truth" and not "where it comes from." We reserve that standard for the justice system where unethical police officers could get away with illegal behaviour to make a case without those limits.

Comment Re:So they're going to release Hillary news when? (Score 4, Insightful) 160

You don't think they could imagine more useful purposes to put that information?

Maybe they don't want Obama to know what they know. Maybe they want to wait for HRC to get into the White House (everyone knew she'd be running this year) to blackmail her. The Russians have absolutely zero interest in American justice being served, why would they release it at all?

Comment Re:If not now... (Score 1) 1023

And this was my point. If they had done this more surreptitiously, it likely wouldn't have been noticed as quickly. The fact it was planned out ahead and will happen automatically, barring a change in government to repeal it, gives businesses the business case to make these changes asap, with the lead-in time the law has given them. However, if they had simply increased the minimum wage by $.5-$1 per year for each of the next however many years it takes to get to $15/hr, businesses would not have the same business case for automation until it got to $12-$14/hr, and that would have spurred the automation technology to get over their last hurdles at that time, and then the roll-out, and, yes, minimum wage would have been $16-$18 before the automation would have been there.

Conversely, had the minimum wage been frozen instead for the next 10 years, automation would be even further out. I'm not saying this as an alternate solution, just pointing out that an inevitability such as automation is seriously moved up by announcing it as if with a bullhorn.

Much like getting warning that your employer is going to get rid of you by the end of the year - you don't wait for the pink slip before you start job searching in earnest, and a business knowing that its labour costs are going to increase by significant amounts over a relatively short period of time will start looking at alternatives at its earliest opportunity, once it knows where the costs will be and over what time frame.

Comment Re:If not now... (Score 0) 1023

Yup. This isn't really a valid argument against increasing the minimum wage.

At worst, it merely hastens the inevitable by a few years, but this is going to happen.

It's the (mythical) frog-in-boiling-water here. If you had bumped up the minimum wage slowly, the impetus wouldn't be there. Hell, they may not even notice until minimum wage got to $18/hr (ok, maybe before then). But when you increase the labour cost by 25-100%, all in one go, you shock the system so bad that they will naturally look to any and all means necessary to rein in their labour expenses. It becomes the squeaky wheel that's going to get a whole lot of grease. Avoid the labour costs from getting noticeably squeaky in short order, and it might have been more than a few years.

Further, this will result in a reverse shock when these robots are deployed - putting extra people out of jobs if they work, and possibly shutting down some less-profitable franchises if they don't work putting even more people out of work.

Would this happen naturally? Of course. But don't pretend the net social cost is zero to hasten it. It's still the equivalent of the broken-window fallacy.

Comment Re:How nice of Facebook to take time out of... (Score 4, Interesting) 485

I do not think being this fat is health or sexy but I a sure as hell there are people that do

False equivalence. You're treating two things, one subjective (what's sexy) and one objective (what's healthy) as if they were equivalent. They aren't.

This feminist group is doing likewise. Acceptance of unhealthy obesity is tantamount to abuse. It's statistical murder. Instead of encouraging people (let's face it here, they're focused on women, but the same applies to men as well) who are obese to, you know, do the work to get to an objectively healthy body weight and save their lives, they're encouraging these women to revel in their obesity and thereby shorten these women's lives. And that's pro-woman?

If you're into BBW, all the power to ya. But don't pretend like you're doing those women any long-term favours. You're participating in their deaths just as surely as if you stuffed the twinkie in their mouth yourself.

As to Facebook, they should really stay the fuck out of it. Allow groups who promote healthy body images to flourish. The proper response to negative speech like this group's is positive speech, not banning.

Slashdot Top Deals

6.023 x 10 to the 23rd power alligator pears = Avocado's number

Working...