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:Da, comrade. (Score 1) 261

Jesus, focus. This ISN'T a "social or political system". It's an economic one.

How to actually build such systems I don't really know.

FOCUS. The proposal is to charge people for their software according to their ability to pay. Specifically charging nations with less GDP a lower rate.

And that might seem like a great idea. But people would take advantage of it. You can look at nearly any other post in this thread for examples, but we've got:

A) People will buy the software in el-cheapo land and bring it to the rich nation.

B) It requires nightmare dystopian levels of DRM to enforce.

C) It won't necessarily stop piracy.

D) It's not necessarily more fair.

E) GDP is a really rough-cut metric.

Because of those problems, it's a bad idea and we shouldn't do it. How about, instead of selling things cheaper to poor people, we tax rich people at a larger rate than poor people? That seems easier to control and manage. As for international inequality, let them freaking pirate it until they make enough money to be worth sueing. You can't sue poor people, they don't have anything to take. Get over it.

Some fundamental shifts in the way we divide up our society's immense riches between its members in light of the impact of automation, AI, and other advances seems likely to be necessary.

The proposal is how we divide up the costs, not the riches, but sure, close enough. Automation, AI, and advances are kinda moot in the discussion. There's plenty of inequality already and the issue is here and now not some far-off impending impact of future tech.

Yeah yeah, you're gearing up for the UBI rant. We get it.

Comment Re:And they're improving, too (Score 1) 149

Well, when you make hyperbolic claims with no supporting details or evidence, expect skepticism.

And Microsoft was in fact paying people to do the very same with Linux back in the day, when the term "astroturf" was invented and Linux had a similar market share on the desktop to DDG's. Also, Google does all evil things, so I'm sure they're doing this evil thing.

Comment Re:I don't even like Uber but (Score 1) 412

Hate to break it to you but most jobs, by the numbers, require "almost no skills." 40% of US workers are unskilled. Should they all starve to death?

Today many of those jobs do pay a living wage, because "unskilled" is a broad category, and some of those jobs are just hard work. But there also need to be "first jobs", and those don't need to pay a living wage. I don't think Uber counts as that, though, but they still sound less sleazy than taxi companies.

When I was poor and working those sorts of jobs, you made a living by working 60+ hours a week. Because overtime kicked in at 40, no job would ever give you close to 40 hours: mid-30s was the most you could hope for. So you worked 2 jobs, and commuted between them, often with very inconvenient gaps between the jobs. I used to hate the idea of overtime pay, as it destroyed what little time might nave been left most days, and still no one in my circumstance got overtime pay.

It sucked, but you find a way to move to something better.

Comment Re:For comparison (Score 1) 149

That gives Google the revenue to be far more evil than DDG. They have a full engineering team devoted to determining your race, your religion, level of education, income, and so on. If you're worried about Trump wanting a "Muslim registry", you should at least be vaguely concerned that Google already has one.

Comment Re:And they're improving, too (Score 2) 149

They can't NOT improve. It looks and behaves like a first-year CompSci student's summer project. I applaud the spirit behind what they are doing, but if Google is Photoshop, DDG is an Etch-A-Sketch.

I hear just complaint just often enough to suspect astroturfing. I've never had a problem with DDG search results - well, no more problem than I have with Google. Plus there's a lot of good bang commands that give me a better command line in my search box, starting with !wa to use the wonderful Wolfram Alpha site.

Comment Re:Where's the president (Score 1) 130

Not just the 80s - employers have never been willing to train for skilled labor, unless you go back to old-school apprenticeships, starting at age 12 and replacing later schooling. With some relevant training, employers will generally soak of the cost of the last 10%, just as you do when hiring someone from a non-identical job elsewhere. But that takes proving that you've already learned the basics, or a similar skill (and thus proving you can learn).

Comment Re:Where's the president (Score 1) 130

There are over a million skilled manufacturing jobs unfilled right now. There's plenty to manufacture, but skilled workers willing to do blue-collar work are hard to find. Sure, we'll never return to the old days, "but the good old days weren't always good, and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems".

Comment Re:Close all WU branches in Nigeria (Score 1) 107

Closer to a good idea provided it doesn't interfere with their intended use. A better idea would be for the agent to ask how the person knows you and what the money is for, but then the last time I sent a WU transfer (friend I met while travelling in Europe, met through someone I met who works at the Red Cross needed emergency money) The agent at the local store was just a cashier who had access to the WU terminal and had no training whatsoever.

Uh... You still have the basic problem of WU: How you will find the recipient if the transaction was a fraud? Anyone can get the money if he or she has the transaction identifier and the WU does not even require an identification (driver licence, social security number, etc) of who appears to receive the money. I described the bank as a better idea here because usually a person to be able to have a bank account needs to be found, he or she needs an address.

Comment Re: Da, comrade. (Score 1) 261

the death toll of capitalism. Those people who starve to death because they can't afford food, die of curable disease because they can't afford medicines.

The 1890's? When late-stage capitalism was so bad and inequality was rampant and the robber-barons forced millions into deadly working conditions and overcharged them for basic needs?

Yeah, capitalism killed plenty. The riff-raff rebelled, fought, unionized, regulated the industries, busted up the trusts and took power away from the oligarchy. Been there, done that. We've learned that being too capitalistic is poisonous. Now we're capitalistic, but temper it with socialistic ideas like a progressive tax structure, regulation on industries, and monopoly/anti-competition laws. And if we were sane, we'd socialize healthcare. My dad's a diabetic. What's going to kill him is when he can no longer afford the doctor's visits and medicine.

The centralized economy that Stalin and Mao tried in the name of communism got a whole ton of people killed.

The ideas of capitalism and communism have killed plenty.

Slashdot Top Deals

You see but you do not observe. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, in "The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes"

Working...