Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Horse Hockey (Score 1) 591

You have no evidence of this

You mean, other than the FBI director directly answering questions about whether or not specific things that Clinton swore were true were in fact untrue? Are you really going to pretend that you haven't watched video of him clarifying that in response to multiple direct questions with examples?

And yes, the director was very clear that other people would face consequences for the things that he found Clinton had done and lied about. No, he was not able to find anyone willing to cite an example of a cabinet secretary deliberately destroying public records and mishandling classified information. Who was going to come up with that? It doesn't happen (until now). What he should have asked for was for any intern-level high school student to spend some time giving him a list of the people representing the long history of criminal prosecutions for government employees breaking the law - including the removing of classified information, sharing it with non-cleared third parties, and more of the things which he agreed that Clinton did. Because there are numerous examples of felony convictions in just such cases, many of which involving far less critical behavior than Clinton's.

Comment Re:More of a protect an entire industrial base thi (Score 1) 140

Don't naively think reciprocal means "dollars", note that my post mentions "barriers" not "balance of trade" (i.e. dollars).

I was naively thinking this was a selfish and futile attempt to protect developed world labor from reality. You know, I still think that is the case. The developed world doesn't need additional barriers, it needs economically healthier societies that among other things treat their employers better.

Comment Re:Read some Engels (Score 1) 495

Likewise what you think of as "capitalism" - given that the USA (and other) governments have repeatedly stepped in to prevent capitalist monopolist oligarchies forming (the railway and oil robber-barons being one example) or break them up when they've managed to establish a toehold(**). There's a new set emerging which have managed to get further than than the last few times, but the reality is that unfettered capitalism leads to abject misery for most and lack of progress for all.

Or create them. There's a centuries long history of government-created monopolies. The railway and oil robber-barons are such examples since strike breaking and market cornering was routinely done with government assistance. I note that many of the examples you gave later on are monopolies due to government interference. AT&T is a particularly notorious example.

(****) the biggest risk associated with atmospheric CO2 spikes and methane breakouts levels isn't ocean level rises. It's anoxic dieoffs resulting in the extinction of pretty much every land animal larger than 40kg.

Unless, of course, your assertion is wrong. Then it's not. That's the problem with asserting things without support from reality. They can be right, they can be wrong.

(*) Communism requires a surplus of production and of labour, such that there isn't enough actual work for people to do. This is close to what we now have in western countries - which without adequate backstops in place leads to large amounts of un(der)employment and the political need for "make work" schemes(***) (In the old days unemployment used to be hidden by hiring people into government service or moving them workseeker to sickness allowances. These options are frequently less available thanks to the breach of the social contract that started with Ronald Reagan's welfare slashing efforts in California in 1970 and gathered pace with California's voting in of proposition 13. That malaise has spread far and wide since then, with the rich getting richer and the poor increasingly being systematically disenfranchised through institutionalised racist and classist policies.)

That's a funny way to say that the US and other countries are competing poorly with cheaper labor from the developing world. The obvious point to make in all this is that labor remains valuable. If there's not enough work to go around, then it's because of systemic failures of the society, not because we've achieved some wonderful state of economy where a few people can do all the work.

Rather than touching a system which relies on labor failure in order to operate, how about we make employment easier so that we can get back to doing useful stuff?

(***) If you start with the notion that a basic allowance will allow creative types to flourish, accept that some people will piss it against the wall and somehow address the raging anti-intellectuallism that's destroying the USA and other countries so that people _want_ to learn, then there's a lot of mileage in it.

Unless, of course, that sort of policy has the opposite effect and encourages more raging anti-intellectuallism. For example, I steer you towards the example of protest culture which has as examples of anti-intellectualism: sloganeering, naked pursuit of self-interest, disturbing and irrational mob behavior ("snapplause" for speech that the mob likes, shouting down of speech the mob doesn't like), careers consisting of tilting at imaginary windmills, and pointless disruptions of parts of society unrelated to the grievance at hand. Having a basic income would of course, make this annoying hobby more prevalent.

Comment Re:Horse Hockey (Score 2, Informative) 591

If the Russians wanted to help Trump they would release some "they weren't classified when on my server" emails that they got from her bathroom server.

Whether or not they have them, there's no need. The FBI has already said that Clinton was lying about that, and they have the evidence to prove it. They just don't have Clinton's leverage with the Obama administration, so no prosecution for that act and the lie told to cover it up - even though anyone else would be in deep legal trouble for doing exactly the same.

Comment Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. (Score 1) 370

Hey, look! He still can't put together a coherent thought on the subject matter, and is still deflecting with juvenile ad hominem. Carry on! The party you're working for happens to be exhibiting a great display of just your sort of incoherence already in Philadelphia - I'm sure you're tuned in for marching orders. Have fun!

Comment Re:Falling problems (Score 1) 111

That's because they don't fly through populated areas.

What? People operate these machines in suburban and busy areas all the time. Millions of them. Most operators are very casual and have very little skill, while using easy-to-fail devices with little or no redundancy or ability to tolerate even mild LiPo failure. And despite all of that, all of the mayhem that the hand-wringing nanny-staters keep talking about... doesn't happen.

Comment Re:the biggest problem I see (Score 2) 111

It's funny because the question is preposterous. If you allowed your dog to run loose in your front yard, and asked a pizza delivery guy to leave food on your front porch where the dog could get to it, would you be questioning the viability of this fancy new "people delivery pizza using cars" technology? No? I see.

Comment Re:Falling problems (Score 1) 111

If drone delivery becomes common, is there going to be a problem with drones falling from the sky and hitting people on the head?

Have you been worrying yourself about ground-based delivery and shipping vehicles striking and killing people? No? Why not? Road-related injuries and deaths happen all the time, and some of them involve commercial delivery vehicles.

In the meantime, millions of people fly remotely operated small aircraft, with untold millions of hours in the air and more or less statistically non-existent rate of people on the ground getting hurt. And that hasn't even really involved more expense, professionally operated machines with built-in redundancies and higher quality motors and batteries.

There are much more realistic things to think about. For example, tens of thousands of people die every year in easily prevented medical mistakes in hospitals.

Comment Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. (Score 1) 370

I'm letting the link speak for me

No you're not. You're unable to speak for yourself, even in a single coherent sentence that explains how you think your wasted vote will constructively work in this upcoming election. Why aren't you saying words of your own? Because you know it will sound like the nonsense it is, and you're trying to use someone else as cover so you can pretend you're not part of that craven charade. You're putting on a transparent veneer of condescending smugness in an attempt to avoid explaining your position, and greatly annoyed that someone isn't falling for the lazy theatrics.

Comment Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. (Score 1) 370

Wake me up when you summon the intellectual courage to form a single sentence of your own that is anything other than lazy, craven ad hominem designed to avoid speaking to the facts. Guess I'll get a good night's sleep, since your only response is to punt to someone else. Your lack of backbone in that area is right in keeping with your unwillingness to face the consequences of deliberately wasting your vote in the general election. But you just carry on, throw some more juvenile personal bile - you clearly think that's what best expresses your character and convictions.

Slashdot Top Deals

The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts. -- Paul Erlich