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


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

Comment Re:Better be ready to be beat up when layed off wo (Score 2, Insightful) 353

It is not paying people to pursuit anything. The whole idea of "Basic Income" is a drive to the lowest common denominator and eventually it will fail as nobody does anything, and no income is being taxed to pay for the people who aren't doing anything. The assumption is that people who don't have to do anything, will want to do something that is productive, instead of sitting at home playing XBox, and whining about Trump.

Not everyone is cutout to be an artist, singer, entertainers, and even if a significant portion are, only the really "famous" (e.g. See Thomas Kincade) artists will ever make money, and schlocky mass produced "art" isn't all that artistic. (see also William Hung singer)

When people are free of a financial burden they will be free to innovate and pursue their dreams.

That is the theory at least. The reality is, not everyone is cutout to be an innovator. Watch a few episodes of Shark Tank to see how people waste their time on projects that have no commercial value thinking the world needs their invention.

Basic Income is a horrible idea, that is doomed for all the reasons people don't want to think about.

Comment Re:Largly irrelevent... (Score 1) 353

almost everything will become completely free

My dad had this saying ... "Things of value tend to be hard to achieve and desired by many"

Do the "hard" things that nobody else wants to do, not the easy things that are easily replaced by substitutes. This is why hand crafted items will have value, while mass produced things won't have value. My time is limited, therefore I choose to do that which makes me valuable. ;-)

Comment Re: Why can't this be detected (Score 1) 108

Many credit card companies simply don't care about fraud. If fraudulent charges happen, they reverse the charges (leaving the merchant out the cost of whatever was bought).

My identity was stolen and Capital One let the account get opened despite numerous red flags (starting with an incorrect mother's maiden name ). When I notified them of the fraud, they gave me the runaround and asked if the account was actually opened by my wife without telling me. Then, they stonewalled both me and the police to protect themselves.

Fraud is a minor inconvenience to credit card companies. Fixing the process would take them too much effort so they just deal with fraud as each case pops up.

Comment Re:1st amendment issue (Score 1) 1048

On Twitter, even if you don't follow a person, they can still send you messages. To give another example I encountered (albeit not one involving "hate speech"), this woman online decided that I was the same person as another guy she had a problem with. Her proof? We both like photography. (She's not all there. She also claims to be a prophet of god and that god talks to her and tells her these things. Obviously, saying "you're mistaken" doesn't work.) She would harass me constantly on Twitter and, eventually, on my blog. I ignored it, but still it was annoying to come back and see a dozen messages from her. I'd block/report her and her account would be taken down, but she'd just start a new one up. (At one point, I and a few other people she was harassing found out that she had set up around a dozen accounts ahead of time for the inevitable account suspension.)

Now, her speech to me wasn't hate speech. (She was accusing me of murder/hacking/doing obscene stuff to kids/etc because god told her.) Still, she could easily have been sending me hate speech instead. Is my option in this situation "just shut down my Twitter account and don't use it anymore"? Is the only option for someone who is being harassed to leave the place where they are being harassed?

As far as deporting illegal immigrants goes, I don't see discussing it and the various policy proposals as being hate speech. It's HOW it's discussed that's the bigger issue. Saying "we should deport those illegal immigrants" is fine. Saying "all [derogatory term for Mexicans] should be rounded up and shot" obviously isn't the same thing. I welcome a rational immigration discussion. Unfortunately, there are many who use the discussion's opening to shout racist rants. This hurts both sides as the left reacts to the racists and the right has their reasonable plans drowned out by hate. (It's one reason why I'm hoping the GOP will fracture so that it can kick out the crazies and reformulate itself as a Reasonable Conservative party. I might be left-of-center, but I want reasonable options out there to keep the Democrats in check.)

Finally, I agree that I wouldn't want to see Twitter, Facebook, etc ban people for spurious reasons. People shouldn't be banned because the CEO of Twitter believes X and someone tried posting a reasonable argument why X is wrong. However, if someone is posting pure hatred and is harassing people, they should be kicked off. That's not fostering communication. That's trying to scare people into silence so the racists/bigots can force their view onto America.

Slashdot Top Deals

1.79 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight -- it's not just a good idea, it's the law!