Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
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:Not what he said. (Score 3, Insightful) 594

But there is a question of balance. $21/hour in the Bay Area isn't much, but with a little overtime it isn't terrible for a low to no skill job. It also isn't that different than $25/hour after union dues. Ergonomics and on the job injury are dealt with by workers comp, and the company eventually has an incentive to address material issues, especially in California.

While I like living in California and many of the protections it offers workers, it is already a lot like being in a union. Why add the extra layer of crooks to the mix?

Not only that, but absent a very very tight job market, if Tesla is really paying so poorly for the area and treating everyone so badly then why work from them? If they aren't having any trouble getting employees then either they have one hell of a PR department to cover these awful awful conditions or.. maybe those awful conditions don't exist and the UAW just wants another source of dues?

Comment Re:Not what he said. (Score 1) 594

Exactly he's complaint is not against Unions per se but against someone who purposely got hired by Tesla for the expressed purpose of instigating Unionization.

As it stands, it still begs the question: why? If you are of the conviction that all workers should be encouraged to be in a union, is it wrong to try to convince others that they should join? IOW, does freedom of speech only hold for the right kind of opinions? Taking a job with Tesla so you can talk to your colleagues about joining a union is no different than going to any other place to argue for your particular opinions; or going to another country as a missionary. Is that morally wrong?

In very general terms and most cases, missionaries don't show up in another country telling people they're structural engineers or the like and then proselytize. Is that sometimes the case, yes I imagine it happens for reasons of safety and such. I'm sure you could try and make the comparison that what this person may have done is exactly the same thing, entering hostile territory under false pretenses. Whether that comparison is accurate or not doesn't actually change the base fact that it is dishonest and arguably immoral.

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, no one is saying this person can't agitate for unions at all, but whether or not he was paid to go in as an agent of the UAW to take employment under false pretenses purely to advance the agenda of the UAW. It's one thing if the workers at Tesla hated life and figured the only way to fix things were to bring in the UAW and it's something else entirely if the UAW said to itself, "There's an untapped source of union dues!", and decided to pull some shenanigans.

Comment Re:Trying to get shot? (Score 1) 678

That is maybe the dumbest thing I have read in a while.

That's one perspective. Another perspective is, since you clearly have no idea what I'm talking about, your opinion on the perspicacity of my argument doesn't carry a lot of weight.

"for the sake of liberty give up your rights" That's some strange doublethink.

Particularly given that that quote "for the sake of liberty give up your rights" can't be found in any of the things I said. Unless you think that the DELUSION that guns enhance your liberty is what you have a right to - that you think you have a right to be deluded and not have anybody tell you.

To be frank, I know exactly what you're talking about and the reasoning behind it and I still agree with him. He said it more directly than I did, but what you're saying makes absolutely no logical sense and the proposed solution the an agreed problem and issue does nothing at all to address the issue at hand.

Comment Re:Trying to get shot? (Score 1) 678

I've always found it odd that the people who are most afraid of non-state actors carrying are usually the ones who also want more and more State and centralized power and authority. Thoughts?

I think you are both right and wrong.

Right in the sense that in most places around the world, people long for the rule of law (proper rule of law, not crude, mocking replicas) and the presence of armed militias, warlords and strongmen are a key factor in the prevention of this foundational democratic principle. The reality of guns replacing the rule of law is made concrete in the Congo, or the Sudan, or Syria. We can't get our way, so we'll shoot people who disagree with us, without reference the rule of law, the congress of the people, negotiation and compromise, let alone being elected based on your ideologies and theories.

Wrong in the sense that in America, regardless of what I imagine is an earnest desire for democracy, it is the american idea of the gun that has led to the present tyranny. Not the guns themselves (neither here nor there), and not really the individuals that carry them, who are often quite ordinary. But the idea that having guns will prevent the degradation of democracy, the idea of american exceptionalism, the mythology of the american revolution, these have led to blind complacency and even denial of the seriousness of these depredations, these erosions, these desecrations of the sacred principles of democracy. Why do americans meekly accept the slaver's yolk? Because of their delusional attachment to guns as a mainstay of protecting a democracy that they are simultaneously failing. Failing to protect and uphold by means which (unlike guns) are actually effective!

For the sake of freedom, for the sake of liberty, for the sake of the dignity of man, throw away your guns.

Er... What?

There are many reasons why things seem to be heading in a less Liberty oriented direction but I'm reasonably sure the ownership of guns isn't one of them. I can't say I've ever heard a single person say anything even remotely like "Well, that latest violation of the principals of Liberty is totally okay because I have my AR-15!" Even if a person said such a thing they'd be rightfully laughed at as the idea is ludicrous.

The closest anyone has come to such a statement is that the Second Amendment provides an ultimate last resort option in the event that government went too far. Each person's limit of too far is likely different, but that doesn't even remotely justify the idea that present conditions can rightfully be traced to a "delusional attachment to guns as a mainstay of protecting a democracy"

What makes you believe that to be the case? What's more, even if that were true, logically throwing away ones guns wouldn't change anything and the correct course of action would be to get more involved in elections and pay more attention to things.

Comment Re:Slice Statistics (Score 1) 678

So because people die in cars and obesity related issues, it's OK to continue to let people die due to guns?

First, who said that? Second, no one has ever died due to a gun. Never has a gun leaped up off a table and shot someone just because it wanted to. They were killed or injured by someone using a gun. You may wish to stop blaming the tool and blame the user.

There's a difference between guns, cars and food, your average Joe doesn't need a gun (let alone an assault rifle).

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. It's one that I clearly don't agree with and to which I would say "What gives you the right to determine that?" If you don't want one, want one in your house, or want to be around people who have them that's your business.

Remove guns, reduce gun deaths. Pretty simple, has worked in other first world countries.

Who cares? If one really cared about those harmed they'd focus on what brought things to that point and not the tools used, as if banning them will suddenly make criminals shrug their shoulders in defeat. You want to help those people? Fantastic. Demand an end to the War on Drugs. Look for ways to lift people out of poverty without demanding more money from tax payers. Improve mental health care and campaign to remove the stigma associated with getting help.

Serious cultural differences there.

You're correct. There are serious cultural differences here. When bad things happen in many parts of the world people look to the heavy hand of government to solve their problems for them. You don't see that quite as much here, though that infection is starting to take hold.

In conclusion, like many who favor ever increasing regulation, you seem to want to blame the tool and ignore the causes. It seems to be the case that you believe that if only you could ban guns then suddenly criminals will just stop doing business, what with them being such law abiding chaps and all. -.-

Comment Re:Trying to get shot? (Score 1) 678

Odd. I own guns and I carry a gun. Can't say I want power over anyone, unless we're counting myself. I've always found it odd that the people who are most afraid of non-state actors carrying are usually the ones who also want more and more State and centralized power and authority. Thoughts?

Ooh, ooh, an open invitation for my opinion!

I wouldn't say I'm 'afraid of non-state actors carrying', hell that is a mouthful right there, I just think the current US guns laws are stupid.

I'm also not in favour of 'more and more State and centrailized power and authority', but I do think a certain amount of state power gives the greatest net gain to society overall (it certainly beats no state power, which we get to see every now again in third world countries - hint, it ain't pretty).

So we know guns can be owned privately without issue, and we know regulations at some level produce beneficial results. So where do we land?

As someone else eloquently quote the other day, guns are force multiplier for crazy people. In the right hands they can do good, in the wrong hands they can do bad.

If you have an interest in reducing harm, then I can't see how you can accept the current gun laws in the US (especially when compared with every other similar Western democracy).

Crazy people with guns are a vanishingly small minority though. They grab headlines but aren't where most of the problems are. I'd wager we could reduce harm far more effectively in other areas with other programs. Ending the failed "War on (some) Drugs" would be an excellent start since large numbers of the murders and such are committed by and/or for drug gangs and related activities. Ending the drug war would likely remove their power and profit base and reduce crime related to same. There may be an uptick in user related crime but I'd wager it would be nothing but noise as compared to the drop in straight gang related crime.

Heavily regulating guns won't hardly effect, if at all, those most likely to misuse them and as such there seems little logical reason to increase regulation beyond current levels. Reducing crime, already at record low levels, even further is a good thing. Reducing violence, also at record low levels, further is also good. I think we trip ourselves up when we try and focus on "gun deaths" and "gun crime" and not just "crime."

Comment Re:Trying to get shot? (Score 1) 678

I'm pretty sure people who like having power over other people are the one's with the guns.

Odd. I own guns and I carry a gun. Can't say I want power over anyone, unless we're counting myself. I've always found it odd that the people who are most afraid of non-state actors carrying are usually the ones who also want more and more State and centralized power and authority. Thoughts?

The trouble is that for most anti-gun people, the only gun owners they encounter are the loud and aggressive gun nuts who argue with them. (And vice versa I suppose) As with most prejudicial situations, if both sides were to mix more and see that by and large the folks on the other side aren't that different, the air would leak out of the balloon.

Seems reasonable. Many people have long said that the quickest way to convert an "anti-gun" person to at least being neutral is to be nice and maybe take them to a range. De-mystify and de-demonize the subject as it were.

Comment Re:Trying to get shot? (Score 1) 678

I've always found it odd that the people who are most afraid of non-state actors carrying are usually the ones who also want more and more State and centralized power and authority.

And I've always found it odd that those who carry a gun because they fear the state actors also want more and more State authority to have more and bigger guns (the gun-nuts are pro large-government with large standing army).

I don't carry a gun out of "fear of state actors". I'm pretty sure I'd need more than a 9mm pistol for that. -.-

I don't know of too many "pro-gun" people who also carry and are in favor of large government. Supporting the military in its mission isn't necessarily the same thing. I support those who volunteer to serve, but I also would rather they just be able to stay home and that government be way way smaller than it is.

Comment Re:Trying to get shot? (Score 1) 678

You are more likely to die from the added weight of the gun causing you to tip over and fall in a fatal fall than to have the gun save your life because you really needed a cop, and didn't have one handy.

You are much safer without a gun than with.

I have a fire extinguisher, but I am not the fire department.

The difference is that a fire extinguisher makes you safer. A gun only makes you feel safer. Guns are for irrational people only. The problem is they will never recognize that, because they are, well, irrational.

Aside from possibly wishful thinking what is your basis for any of these beliefs? Having the fire extinguisher doesn't make me safer. Having it and knowing how it use it in the event it is needed contributes to that safety. Having a weapon and knowing how to use it also can raise your odds of surviving an encounter one would likely not want to face with nothing but a reliance on the good nature of someone who has already demonstrated they're willing to harm one to get what they want.

Romancing Alaska, huh? Would you care to rely on your winning debate skills in the relatively unlikely event a Kodiak came calling on your camp?

Comment Re:Slice Statistics (Score 1) 678

You've just stated the problem with guns: "The same would be true if one handed it to an untrained and clueless adult."
Now, consider all the clueless adults in America and how many of them have guns.
Do you understand what I mean about guns being dangerous now, or are you going to continue with this pathetic "it's inanimate, therefore safe" stupidity?
Oh, and good luck training a two year old in gun safety.

I wouldn't try to teach a two year old gun safety beyond "don't touch" and then keep them away from them until they've developed the mental capacity for more. I also wouldn't toss the keys to a 3600 pound steel missile, also known as a car, to an 8 year old nor would I hand a chainsaw to 6 year old because these are also recipes for "Are you bloody kidding me?" levels of awful.

None the less, every last one of those items are perfectly safe sitting inanimate and doing nothing. They all require a user to use or misuse. While you can try and fall back on the trope that guns are especially dangerous because of the "they were designed to kill" argument, the fact is that discounting suicides (reasonable as far as I'm concerned absent proof that presence of guns leads to more suicides) cars are twice as dangerous as guns if we're counting fatalities per year. If you somehow believe that discounting suicides isn't fair, then guns are merely as dangerous as cars. From that perspective the misuse of food, in the form of poor and overeating, is way way more deadly and I'm sure there are other examples as well.

The point is, guns are dangerous in the same way that other powerful and yes useful machines are dangerous. Their power means they can cause great harm if misused or used by the untrained. The exact same thing can be said about many things and yet no one is trying to ban them at the moment, are they?

Comment Re:Slice Statistics (Score 1) 678

Ok, guns are designed to shoot projectiles. For what purpose? Target practice? What is target practice for? To get better at shooting? What is shooting for? .... destroying stuff.

Also, you cannot tell me that guns are not designed to kill. That is the whole reason guns were invented, sorry, no, not for target practice and not for sport... those things came later and only exist because of the existence and prevalence of guns.

FYI, I am not anti-gun. I am just not trying to delude myself as to their reason for existing.

I won't dispute that they were originally exclusively designed as weapons. In that you are quite correct. However, much as they have advanced way beyond the arquebus of the 15th Century their uses these days are far more diverse. Since we're speaking of problems of the current time it makes sense to take that into consideration. Perhaps this is an abstruse point but fair as far as I'm concerned. Target practice may be for destructive purposes or merely for enjoyment and I'd wager that as a function of the percentage of shots for a given purpose that probably out numbers other purposes outside of the military or police.

In any case, it is the use a given user puts it to that really matters in the end and that's the point I was trying to make. When one says that a given item is only for a given purpose and that purpose is ostensibly "bad" then one is merely trying to demonize the object and campaign against it and/or to place all blame for ill-use on the object and not the user.

Comment Re:Slice Statistics (Score 1) 678

Now give it loaded to a child and say it's safe because it's an inanimate object.
Don't worry, the kid isn't going to kill anyone, just like the gun isn't going to kill anyone.

Your example is looney, however, the gun is still not the dangerous actor. The child, if not properly trained in firearms safety, is the dangerous actor along with someone irresponsible enough to hand a firearm to such a person. The same would be true if one handed it to an untrained and clueless adult.

In other words, you proved the point I made. The gun will sit there and do nothing until the heat death of the universe, baring random events, unless a person picks it up and does something with it. Try again?

Comment Re:Trying to get shot? (Score 3, Interesting) 678

Tell us, why do you carry a gun?

Short and possibly flippant answer, because a cop weighs too much.

Longer and more useful answer, because things happen and when it does the odds that a cop or such will be right there is vanishingly small. Sure, you can call the police and should do so. However, even under the very best of conditions it will still take them minutes to get there in a situation where seconds count. Do I have pretensions of being some super bad ass who will take on terrorists and vanquish evil? Don't be silly. I hope I could acquit myself well and have practiced with that in mind, less for terrorists (highly unlikely to ever happen) and more for mundane things, but still.

I have a fire extinguisher, but I am not the fire department. I have car insurance as well, and hope I never have to use any of these things. Yet, if I do I hope to be as prepared as one can reasonably be for such a thing. One could ask why you don't, if I may presume so much, carry one and be prepared as well. One could ask that, but as far as I'm concerned it would be rude to do so as if you don't I presume you have what you feel are good and proper reasons and I would not presume to judge anyone for doing so or not doing so. It's a personal decision and should remain such.

Comment Re:Trying to get shot? (Score 1) 678

My stance on gun control is not relevant, which is exactly the point I'm trying to make. A person's stance on gun-control is not an indicator of whether they support a more authoritarian state in general, which is what the GP implies.

While realizing I replied above as well, I must say it is a fairly reliable indicator. You'll almost certainly never find a person who both says "strict gun control!" and also seriously say "maximum freedom for the individual!" unless they're laying some exceedingly serious caveats on that. While those in favor of guns rights and such may also sometimes lay caveats they don't tend to be as intrusive. Still, not ideal but possibly not as bad depending on whose bull is being gored.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing." -- Sledge Hammer