Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re: Better be ready to be beat up when layed off w (Score 1) 535

you seem to be implying that, to compete with automation, humans should be willing to be treated like dirt.

- no, I am implying that the cost of litigation is a consideration for any employer *regardless of the merits*. Anybody can sue anybody else if there is merit, that's one thing, however the labour laws make it too easy for an employee to sue an employer for things like 'wrongful termination' and that's a garbage claim. Same with 'human rights' related lawsuits, there is no such thing as a 'human right to work', human rights are protections against government oppression, not entitlements for the employees and obligations upon the employers, yet that's exactly what 'human rights' lawsuits against employers are: they didn't do something the government puts an obligation on them to do, to satisfy an entitlement that the government deems an employee is supposed to receive from an employer.

Being treated like dirt is one thing, and nobody has to work for an employer who treats people like dirt, being provided government entitlements because an employee and employer are working together is something else, that's one of the 3 main reasons why I outsource most of my development to a different country.

Comment Re:Welcome to the Trump future... (Score 1) 405

you want everyone to be forced to pay into

- I completely disagree, individual freedom is more relevant and more important than individual life, i.e., an individual should be able to do with his or her life as he or she pleases, but they should not get any subsidies from anybody based on the oppression of any government apparatus.

This is not about GDP, this is not about society, this is about individual freedoms and I am 100% against anybody being forced to subsidise anybody else, under those conditions buying health insurance is a decision that would be taken much more seriously than if everybody was oppressed by the state and forced to pay into it.

Comment Re:Apple PAYS for your SS, Medicare, Welfare and W (Score 1) 245

So, there is zero risk.

- :) You are being sarcastic I hope, I had a great chuckle (for real) reading this, hopefully you were smiling while writing that, yes?

The only 0 risk in buying government bonds is this: risk of getting back the value of the money you bought the bonds with.

Comment Re: Better be ready to be beat up when layed off w (Score 1) 535

So then you are looking at specialized equipment thinking it can replace a human at a generic job? I think you are doing a couple of things wring here: underestimating our desire to build generic robots while overestimating capacity of specialized equipment to replace people at generic jobs within newer companies that don't have the capital to acquire or build very specialized equipment. In either case I think my points still stand, if the equipment is too specialized and expensive, humans can compete if they can provide quality, if the equipment is so general purpose and ubiquitous that anybody can afford it with a few months of pay, then people would be acquiring it to rent it out to businesses or to do jobs just like the owner operator truck drivers of today.

As to taxes and regulations, obviously they are making human labour less competitive compared to capital, is this even a question? A robot will not sue the company for 'wrongful termination' or for 'sexual harassment' or anything else for that matter (regardless of the merits). Regardless of what /. says, robots will not form unions,there will be no mandate for payroll tax or minimum wage or medical insurance, etc. These are government inventions that make people uncompetitive against labour.

Comment I hope AI can make coding redundant (Score 1) 88

We should hope that AI can learn to code and do it well enough that I could converse with it in a human language, define the problem as I see it and it would immediately (it would be immediate, right) give me a number of ready solutions to pick from. The amount of new product development that could take place would be staggering, we could quickly realise any idea, I hope that the AI would be good enough at that point to do user support and maintenance for the selected solution.

You, guys, are basically looking at it all wrong. Why shouldn't we desire to have systems at our disposal that would be good enough to create software (and at some point hardware) that we could 'program' by explaining high level requirements to a machine? The machine would have to ask more questions, the testing would reveal problems, the machine could do support and maintenance. I see this as a huge net positive, not as something that would hurt us but as something that would save us from decades of sitting on ass, getting less and less active over time, going blind from the screen... And we could never achieve everything we needed anyway at the speed of a human coder.

Comment Re:Apple PAYS for your SS, Medicare, Welfare and W (Score 1) 245

No, US bonds are the definition of ponzi scam that even Madoff would be awed by. U S A cannot return the borrowed VALUE of the money, that is what the Fed and the rest of the central banks are involved in, global inflation, writing off the debt without admitting the technicality of the default. The actual USA debt is all of the federal, state, municipal, corporate and personal borrowing that exceeds 221 trillion dollars and cannot be repaid under any circumstances.

Comment Apple PAYS for your SS, Medicare, Welfare and Wars (Score 1, Interesting) 245

The actual headline should be: USA government is still able to run the ponzi scams such as SS, Medicare, all other Welfare payments as well as waging its wars thanks to Apple and others who are *STILL* purchasing and holding their bonds.

Apple is getting $6 from each individual in interest rates over *YEARS*? Think about it: over *YEARS* Apple has gained *ONLY* $6 per person while buying insane amount of US debt.

Apple is losing money in this transaction, it could have used that money much more effectively in many other ways and instead they are buying US Treasury debt.

Apple and the rest of the bond holders: what are you going to do when there is a mass exodus from the US debt? Will you be the first in line to dump it? I think you are not going to be the preferred seller.

Comment Re:So you say, Solandri.... (Score 1) 252

To the contrary, the Fed employed a large variety of new techniques.

- all of these so called 'new techniques' are the same old technique of printing money. The so called 'operation twist' (it should be called 'operation screw you' instead) was about the Fed taking upon itself to absorb the long side of the curve, buying long term bonds and selling short term bills, which means turning the US debt into short term, variable rate mortgage. Yeah, that worked so well in the housing market, why not do it for the entire government debt, right?

USA is *not* on any path to increase interest rates. That's buying into the nonsensical government propaganda hook line and sinker. USA SHOULD have normal interest rates and should have NEVER went to 1% with Greenspan and to 0 with Bernanke.

Until Bernanke, Greenspan has proven himself to be the worst idiot and after him Bernanke has proven that no amount of idiocy can be unmatched a worse idiot and then Yellen has proven that gender doesn't matter at all, idiots come in all forms, sizes and genders.

Greenspan was an absolute disaster, Bernanke was an absolute disaster, Yellen is an absolute disaster in a skirt. What's funny is that at least Greenspan admits it *now*, maybe it will take Bernanke another 10 years to admit it as well. Yellen will never admit it.

Comment Re:I think you're mistaken about gold (Score 1) 252

Deflation seems like it helps people who have already accumulated wealth. Inflation seems like it helps people who have not accumulated wealth.

- completely wrong. Deflation favours savings and puts people on the right track to accumulate wealth and to use it productively while inflation favours spending *instead* of production, it gets the borrowers off the hook, because they don't have to give back what they actually borrowed, it hurts savers, encourages borrowing for spending and because it is done with the hand of the government (through the Treasury and the Fed and other banks working together) it moves new money to the preferred and connected people, while causing rising prices for everybody else.

Inflation favours the politically connected and hurts the rest.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Never face facts; if you do, you'll never get up in the morning." -- Marlo Thomas

Working...