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:Why not name him? (Score 1) 102

Hey! We pour the most money into our prison system, so it must be the best.

Your prison companies will be happy to make your prison system even better by increasing their profit margins.

Hard to imagine that people could not figure out that in a corporatocracy, that applting the profit motive to incarcerating humans would not lead to demands and baksheesh to incarderate more humans. If you have to make more profit every quarter, you need more prisoners, for longer periods of time. The most contradictory thing about that, is that you need to take care of the prisoners so that they live as long as possible, maximizing the profit per prisoner, while the get tough on crime crowd wants them all dead as soon as possible, so they pay as little as possible. Guess who wins?

Comment Re:I'd love it except I have a kid (Score 2) 76

No phone comes anywhere near even a mediocre real camera.

That's true but I'm pretty happy with the camera on my iPhone 6 Plus. It's optically stabilized and makes pretty good pics as long as there's enough light.

While I have been pretty tough on smartphone cameras, and while it's true that they fall short in many ways compared to a DSLR, they are a marked improvement over the 110 cameras that used to be the mainstay of the regular consumers.

Comment Re:Why not name him? (Score 3, Interesting) 102

Considering the US has the highest recidivism rate, around 76%, in the world, the EU countries by definition are doing better. Norway, as an example, has the lowest recidivism rate, around 20%, in the world.

Hey! We pour the most money into our prison system, so it must be the best.

Sad to say, the get tough on crime crowd in conjunction with the war on drugs, has turned the US Prison system into insanity. Then there is the aspect of money, which in some cases gets you three months for sexual assault rape, http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/02/... versus getting 50 years for stealing a rack of ribs. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

And yet, the people who think that what amounts to a life sentence for stealing food is a fine idea, almost universally don't want to pay for that incarceration.

We're Kookoo for Cocoa-Puffs some times.

Comment Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score 1) 658

on this issue it is you, the theoretical "libertarian" who is being the tyrant, by refusing to acknowledge what someone else tells you their identity is.
you have no right, none, zero, zilch, to dictate to another person what their identity is.

if someone says to you that their name is Bob, you call them Bob, not John; the same holds true for gender.

your feelings on the issue have zero merit or relevance.

Comment Re: Dunno if (Score 1) 112

And like I said, this limitation of liability applies to nearly everyone in the modern world. Debt slavery is gone. Debts are not passed to others. So we are all being subsidized by your logic, which is illogical.

Are you having some issues this evening? What would be the difference between a company paying for 12 billion dollars of insurance coverage, and one paying for 10 or 20 times that? Because in the disasters we've had so far, it is crediible that would be the amount of damage incurred. After that, the government picks up the tab. I would like that setup for say, my house insurance. Since we bought our place, it has trebled in value, and I have had to pay more every time it gets re-assessed. I would love to be paying the premiums I paid back in 1994, and if damages exceed that, the Government would write me out a check for the difference. But I can't. I could insure my place for the same amount as in 1994, but if it were wrecked, I'd get a check for a third of the present day replacement costs. And as it turns out, there is a federal flood insurance program that does similarly to the Nuc industry exemption from liabilit,. But I live on top of a hill, so am not eligible But I would indeed have about 20 thousand dollars sitting around that I would have not had to pay out over time if I could have been covered in the same way the nuc plants are covered.

Hey a homeless guy could start a fire in a big city and cause millions of dollars of damage. And he wouldn't have to pay a dime. So the government is subsidizing homeless guys to start fires!!!

And a hurricane could come through and wipe the town out. Or an earthquake. They might be considered Acts of God Your amusing homeless pyromaniac is a criminal act. Presumably the buildings that were destroyed had insurance that they had to pay for based on actual risk assessment tables, and the homeless guy is in prison. Your concept is a non sequitur.

Tyying to get my mind around the apparent fact that you equate the nuclear power industry with a homeless guy. Then again, you are the logical one, eh?

If you even think for one moment that that is what I have suggested, or if your amusing cliff drop version of the slippery slope is reasonable, you might reconsider your attacks on other people's logic.

You want to have this discussion? Or are you just going to stick your fingers in your ears and go "neener neener neener!"

I'm not going to argue with people who cannot understand that dollars are dollars, what you spend is gone, and what you keep you keep or share with the stakeholders, and if you think that it isn't every bit the equal of handing over cash, well, we can't fix that can we. Ciao, me chachalaca!

Comment Re:Hope he's right, but I doubt it (Score 1) 154

This was the first time we didn't have a ready answer for what people could do next when they no longer needed a typing pool, etc.

So much this. And it's not just semi-skilled work like pool typists. It's skilled work like accountants, draftsmen, and engineers. It's not just blue collar work, it's white collars as well. Our economy is in the process of going through a Second Industrial Revolution - and the first one tossed millions into grinding poverty for the better part of a century. I don't foresee the coming one as being much better.

I hope executives like Benioff don't just assume everything is going to work out.

The problem isn't just executives like Benioff. There's plenty of nit brained conservatives who quote the "80% to 2%" statistic you do, but don't follow through the logic. There's plenty of conservative nit brains who don't grasp how the earlier revolutions played out. There's plenty of conservative nit brains who claim that there will always be "plenty of manual labor required", but who can't grasp that most unskilled jobs are gone and most skilled jobs are filled - there's insufficient demand for the millions facing unemployment or underemployment, now or in the coming decades.

And the worst are the conservative nit brains who presume that everyone un- or under- employed is only in that state due to their own personal choices.

Maybe 10% of them have the aptitude to move up to the "robot repairman" level of employment, so where does the other 90% go? While growing up in the Rust Belt, I saw factory closures that dumped thousands of low-skilled workers out onto the job market all at once. Sadly, the answer to this question in that case was that the 90% ended up moving away, employed in menial minimum wage jobs like home health care aides and fast food workers, or perpetually broke.

Ayup. And that's another problem with the upcoming deluge - the job market (at a national level) is already abrim with just that kind of people.

Slashdot Top Deals

Memory fault -- brain fried