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


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:Machines replacing bank tellers? (Score 1) 216

You don't tell each other what to do but you want to control everybody else for your personal gain, a sign of a true collectivist is a good dose of hypocrisy. Atheism doesn't make you any more or any less susceptible to mass delusions, , USSR was based on atheism. I am an atheist, I am also anti collectivist and I find it rude to tell others what to do. You, on the other hand like to tell others what to do, that is your collectivist nature and atheism does nothing to get rid of that rudeness as you call it.

What you really are is an opportunist who sees people as resources to be manipulated and used to achieve your personal goals, which is why your stated ideology is that of some type of a socialist. You want others to drink the poison for you, be a sport, set an example.

Comment Re: Machines replacing bank tellers? (Score 1) 216

Read the thread: might makes right is the argument I am objecting to. Collectivism used to provide power based on numbers. Automation and technology equalizes the odds, 10 people against 1 is not that bad if 1 has a few robots on his side.

As to Ayn Rand, I appreciate her philosophy and writing, it is great, but I never needed it to reach my own conclusions decades ago. I only read her books a few years back after hearing so much about them. She was a great philosopher AFAIC, a pretty good writer as well, but the ideas were always here, with or without her books. As to violence - that is the argument of the collectivists, not of the individualists.

Comment Re: Machines replacing bank tellers? (Score 1) 216

The retard here is you, the millions of the productive people can afford the tech ( and they have enough of it as is ) to annihilate the rioting masses, of course the most efficient tools have already been deployed. Urbanization and specialization ensures that the ones with little to no productive capacity will starve to death and will kill off each other. This is not your farmer society, where people could live off the land. Vast majority of people today will die of starvation if the stores are not resupplied for a few weeks. Beyond that we are talking about automation here. Protection has is and will be automated more and more, where it would make no sense not to acquire it to put down riots and attacks by the crowds. A mix of machine guns and droids will probably be effective enough. A sleeping biological agent added to some popular food can probably wait to be activated to take down the hosts. It is not that far fetched, especially distribution should be easy enough to handle, people buy whatever is the cheapest, so make it cheap and see it spread.

But never mind all that, the productive people can have the police, the army, the politicians on their side because they can pay.

Comment Re: Machines replacing bank tellers? (Score 1) 216

There are more than enough people in the productive category for that purpose. Beyond that the technology is getting more advanced, the gene selection and mutation can be manipulated artificially, so this argument will cease to exist soon if it hasn't already. There enough people in the productive spectrum to keep the species going , I am more than certain of it. There are millions of business owners in the world.

Comment Re:Our Future. (Score 1) 216

So it should be done covertly, government needs to be allowed to overextend itself, letting the money become a worthless fiat that eventually loses the ability to buy weapons and to pay for the walking talking military meat. Once the government is rotten and weak enough you don't need a shooting war to take it down.

Comment Re:Good grief (Score 1) 251

>The thesis of this "scientific paper" is basically like a couple of tokers sitting around in their parents' basement saying "DUUUUDE... what if the money in our savings account DOUBLED EVERY YEAR?!???

Again this is not a critique of the paper, it is a critique of tokers sitting around in their parent's basement. There is no substance in your criticism to address, it really is just an expression of your feelings toward the paper's author. Aside from the fact that you're just name-calling, the numerical basis you've used for comparison is just wrong.

Now it so happens I have you at a disadvantage: I've actually read the paper. It's closer the tokers sitting around saying, "How can we achieve a 7% annual compound interest rate sustained over ten years with our portfolio," which is roughly what doubling your money in ten years takes. The authors are talking about what it would take to half carbon emissions which would be a 6.6% reduction each year, and they discuss methods for reducing them, which they break down into near term no-brainer, near-term difficult, and long term speculative. As is usual the further out you go the less concrete and certain you can be. This is normal in economic projections that go twenty or more years out.

Now you may disagree with the specific means proposed, some of which are quite drastic (e.g. attempting to recover external costs through inheritance taxes). But there is nothing inherently irrational about starting with a goal -- zero carbon emissions by 2050 -- then asking what it would take to achieve that. Nor is there anything inherently ridiculous with coming up with the answer that it'll take a mix of things, some of which looking twenty or more years into the future we can't predict yet.

Comment Re: Machines replacing bank tellers? (Score 1) 216

Go ahead and explain why should some, those with the capacity to produce be supporting others, who do not have that capacity? Just try not to use 'they will kill you and take your stuff' argument, USSR tried it, fell apart, more importantly those with the capacity to produce also do have (and will have more) capacity to protect themselves. Animals that cannot feed themselves die off, that is the nature of things. Of course they can try and steal, that is expected. Of course those, who have something of value will protect themselves, that is also the nature of things. But to feed and to shelter and to entertain your would be assailants because they want what you have? That IS perversion. I suppose *some* level of voluntary charity always existed and will exist in the future, however beyond some voluntary charity and beyond the threat of violence what else do you actually think is there? Religion? There is no god, religion is a useful political tool to keep the poor at bay (a threat of everlasting violence after death scares a large number of human animals). So what is your idea, why should a newly born person be entitled to the productive output of an existing person?

Comment Re:Our Future. (Score 1) 216

Good, do that. I, on the other hand, am preparing my kids to live outside of the boundaries enforced by the system the rest of you are making sure to keep in power. The future is not a single system of control but fragmentation of power and decentralization. Automation only assures that, automation ensures a more free future rather a more oppressive one. The age of the automobile made people freer from control of the oppressive government than we would have been without the cars. The age of automation will make people freer from other types of control that we are experiencing today.

Comment Re:deploy this, and you arent a state anymore. (Score 1) 158

Government the bigger and more remote it gets the more it looks upon the population as a herd to be managed, rather than as their friends and neighbors.

[US politician] "I agree! We need to take action immediately! We will create a new Cabinet-level post and an entire new Federal Department (complete with fully-auto rifles, grenade launchers, .50-cal heavy machine guns, MRAPs, and SWAT teams like the Social Security Administration and EPA) to address this injustice! We are currently in serious discussions with concerned citizen-group leaders, meeting in our new 'domestic negotiation center' located at Guantanamo." [/US politician]


Comment Re:Percentage doesn't matter (Score 1) 137

Oh, I think the percentage bit is significant. It shouldn't be news that they've acknowledged reality; but it's remarkable that their responses is so meaningless.

It makes me wonder whether this is just marketing BS or whether they're really that incoherent about strategy.

Many proprietary software companies have prospered in an era of open source acceptance -- even when very good free software alternatives for their products exists (Microsoft, Oracle). But although we don't tend to think of them that way, they tend to be value-priced. You get a lot of (not necessarily great) software engineering for your $199 Windows license fee.

But the play this game you need scale to amortize development costs over many users. If you have more of a niche product competing against a solid open source competitor is going to be really, really hard. As in SAS charges almost $9000 for a single seat license, and that's good for only a year; thereafter you'll have to fork over thousands of dollars every year. That kind of cash pays for a lot of R training.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The pathology is to want control, not that you ever get it, because of course you never do." -- Gregory Bateson