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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Serving his friends against his constituents (Score 1) 251

But for 40 years, people have claimed they were spending more money on schools to benefit the students. Now we are to believe that _this time_ it's true?

You'll have to do a better job of describing why you think "cheap ass voters" need to pay for even more. How about the school districts just take some of that non-beneficial spending and redirect it to your idea instead of going back to the taxpayers?

Yeah, it sucks that the school employees consider the bureaucrats their customers. But after all, that's who controls their funding and directs them in what to do, the rest of us just get to pay for it all.

Comment Re:Fiber not expensive? (Score 1) 251

So your school _already_ has two extra dark fiber lines, but you think the cost of running fiber is too expensive to have more than one line be run?

The obvious question about your other examples is that if it's soooo difficult for competitors to get going, why does the local government need to grant them a monopoly? Wouldn't they just naturally have one anyway? The existence of thousands of monopoly franchise agreements with local governments seems to contradict your analysis....

And yes, I've provisioned internet access for a K-8 school and written e-rate grants applications, etc... I'm sure in a different State than you are from, but this doesn't significantly affect that.

Comment Re:Serving his friends against his constituents (Score 1) 251

So your prediction would be that if we say, triple the inflation adjusted spending on schools, and also double the amount of staff, we'll have much better educational results?

Yeah, we tried that experiment over the last 40 years and found out that educational results continued unchanged, if anything got a little bit worse.

They also studied specific districts where funds were cut on average 20% over time. Again, no change in educational outcomes.

Comment Re:IF IF IF (Score 1) 251

So because government regulations have distorted the market, we need to have yet another layer of government regulations to keep the market from being distorted? It's regulatory turtles all the way down.

Price caps = reduction in supply. It doesn't make a lot of sense to say because supply has been reduced, we need price caps. If anything, the economics argues for precisely the opposite. How do you expect competition to exist if there are price caps? With price caps, you're basically legislating reduced supply and competition only to provide the crappiest service possible for legislated price.

Don't even get me started on local government franchise monopolies....

Comment Re:Make America Great Again (Score 1) 251

The price controls are for the benefit of the utilities, not for the benefit of their customers.

They are part of the scheme where their buddies in the government prevent anyone from competing with them and ensure they have steady profits and don't have to worry too much about expenses (including lobbying money).

Comment Re:Common Sense calling - Women have babies (Score 1) 238

The claim is so utterly at odds with the way Google operates.

Now try to keep that same skepticism when you hear similar claims by the government or some academic paper about places you don't know about directly (other companies, industries or the country as a whole) and you'll be closer to the truth than if you just believe them.

The confusion comes from the goal of these sorts of accusations not actually being to convince people to treat other people equally. If you can do the math on the statistics, then you'll realize:
1. Based on normal distributions, a significant number of companies will have these sorts of "problems" even when there is zero actual illegal discrimination.
2. The only way for a company to ensure it doesn't get labeled as discriminating by these people is to start discriminating against non-favored groups in order to make the numbers come out "right".

Comment Re:Wait, this is a surprise? (Score 1) 903

The whole premise is based on a false assumption, that the way to determine if taxes are high or low is by comparing levels between countries. Which is made doubly-ridiculous by not even comparing the total taxes, but just by picking some of them out. It's like saying, "Are you short? We compared your family's average height to the NBA and guess what, you're not that tall!" Not very meaningful.

You can just as easily compare current tax revenues to the same country over time and look at total taxes being collected from people, but then you'd have to notice that total per capita inflation adjusted taxes have increased exponentially over time.

When someone is cherry picking the data to exclude what's easily available online to anyone and include non-relevant factors for a fact, then you have to be just a little suspicious that they're motivations are something other than just informing people.

Are total taxes high or low? Relative to what? The same country in the past? United States vs. Europe? Vs. Venezuela? Vs. Japan? Who cares if they are high or low compared to say, South Africa. There are way too many other differences to make that comparison meaningful. The best comparison is to compare the same country to itself over time. That still excludes other changes locally over time, but at least the residents of that country are likely to at least understand those.

Comment Contract negotiation... (Score 3, Insightful) 316

So, if you're a TV writer, why not negotiate a contract which takes into account the new reality of streaming and shorter seasons?

What's the big deal? Business conditions change all the time in all sorts of industries and small businesses (which is what most writers should be if they're working via contract and for various rights) adjust to it.

I mean, if they had some sort of big bureaucratic organization which they were forced to belong to and which controlled standard contract terms they might be screwed over while they waited and hoped for it to adjust to the new reality, but if they are free and work for themselves, then it's just business as usual.

Comment Re:It's just smart business. (Score 1) 396

Yeah! Look at all the office clerks sitting out of work because computers automated their jobs! Individual banks alone used to employ thousands of people who've all been replaced by computers automating their job. What will all those people ever be able to do? How will they survive!

You should stop using a computer and go back to hiring people to do the same work instead. Think of how much more benefit you'll have on society!

No need to respond to this post unless you decide it's actually just fine for you to automate the work involved in posting on /. with a computer instead of hiring real people to do the work for you...

Comment Re:Democrats (Score 1) 547

So in summary, the FCC goes back to not regulating this, just like they didn't regulate this until oh... all of 6 months ago?

The rules Congress just disapproved were passed in October 2016. The Internet survived just fine for decades without the FCC's rules. Pretty sure the sky isn't going to fall as a result of these regulations only lasting a few months.

Slashdot Top Deals

All the simple programs have been written.

Working...