Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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

Comment Re:Nope (Score 1) 345

I think this Friedman quote still has relevance though:

Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it's jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels.

Does it really serve a purpose if you make it harder than it needs to be? And self-driving cars will be a benefit to everyone else. I can go down to the store and get a liter of milk for next to nothing because of milking robots and other automation, if I had to pay a living wage for someone to pull a cow's teats it would cost a *lot* more. All those stores who transport goods will get cheaper. The money people don't pay on taxis will be spent on other things. Everyone can spend their commute watching TV instead of wasting home time. It'll be more practical to live further from the office. Elderly might get around more and live more fulfilling lives. Large groups of people would have the benefits of a private driver, previously a rare luxury. In ways perhaps even better, since you get total discretion and it's always at your whim 24x7.

Assuming you can still find a job, of course. But we've been pretty inventive about creating new needs and services once we could afford to. The burger flipper might be on the way out, I doubt the chef is. A robot vacuum cleaner isn't scrubbing the bathroom or dusting the furniture. The electric lawn mower doesn't do flower beds or trimming the hedge. The washing machine doesn't pair my socks or iron my shirts. Of course you might say that one day we'll have a "I, Robot" assistant that'll do absolutely everything a human does cheaper and better but that's not in 10 or 50 years. Neither is self-repairing, self-replicating and self-evolving robots that work almost by themselves.

Real wages in the US has been flat for quite some time now, but at the same time you've had a massive influx of cheap labor on the global market depressing wages. You don't get a zillion Chinese or Indian employees working for a pittance anymore, when you look at the whole world workers are getting better paid. If it keeps going up, sooner or later it will return to growth in the US too because US wages are normal wages and not super expensive wages anymore. There is no magic that makes Americans stay far ahead of the pack forever, even though that how it's been in the past with the old world destrroying itself with world wars and an illiterate, primitive third world. There are smart people other places too, when they get the opportunity.

Comment Re: Trump! (Score 1) 488

Right. If you own stock, you own it. If it becomes nearly worthless, you own nearly worthless stock. You can choose to sell it or walk away from it ... but no, you don't get it taken from you by the Obama administration who then props it up with government loans so it's once again worth something and then have it handed over to political supporters as a prize.

Comment Re:Boko Haram? (Score 1) 255

So, instead of rambling on, how about specifically explaining how Boko Haram's murdering of villages full of people and kidnapping the young girls and subjecting them to gang rapes and forced marriage is a function of climate change. Be very specific. How does the climate change cause the rape? When a man decides to rape a woman and tells her village it's because they're not Muslim, what is the actual, climate-based reason for that rape? Specifically, please.

Comment It's already happened a few times already... (Score 1) 345

"Secretary" used to be the most common job according to some interpretations of BLS reports. The Word Processor made that role largely obsolete and now self-service:

So nowadays it's "Truck Driver"... wait a bit longer until autonomous vehicles make those delivery jobs go away. Wouldn't call those middle-class jobs, though.

Counterpoint: Sales and Services are the most common job in the US today, along with maybe some form of Educator:

It'll still be a while before those social jobs are automated away.

Comment Re:Trump! (Score 1) 488

It wasn't stolen from GM, it was stolen from the investors who owned the stock. Which you know. There wasn't anything "normal" about that transaction. Especially the part where it wasn't really a transaction at all, but a government-enforced transfer of wealth from private investors and retirement funds into the hands of a politicized labor union. Which you know.

Comment Re:Democrats are the enemy (Score 1) 549

How can you keep saying that while Trump keeps proving that he's only draining the swamp because everyone he wants to hire is at the bottom?

People keep repeating this meme, but always carefully avoid mentioning which "bottom," for example, is occupied by, say, Gen. Mattis. Or former Sec. Chao, or Gov. Haley. Be specific. In which way are these people the "bottom" of something? They're all going to agree to never lobby for foreign entities, and go half a decade after they leave office before they can do that work domestically. Which awfulness do they represent, to you?

Comment Misquoted the American Bar Association (Score 1) 1028

The American Bar Association concluded:
"However, under the First Amendment, individuals do have a right to speech that the listener disagrees with and to speech that is offensive and hateful.
Think about it. It’s always easier to defend someone’s right to say something with which you agree. But in a free society, you also have a duty to defend speech to which you may strongly object."

Assault and battery.
Two charges often mentioned in news and police reports. Assault is making threats of bodily harm against someone. Battery is actually harming someone, whether you threaten them or not. The 1st Amendment does not protect assault or battery, but "offending" someone's feelings is neither.

Making offending words illegal speech puts ammunition into the hands of unstable people, who are often exploited by those with a "politically correct" agenda for the purposes of speech, thought and political control. That's what Facebook, Google and YouTube have and are doing. The owners and managers of all three corporations were "in the tank" for Hillary Clinton, and used several methods to silence opposition against her, calling Conservative view points "hate" speech. Very convenient. YouTube, after years of encouraging people to create and post video content for a share of the ad revenue, turned on those with Conservative content and demonetized them. Those videos didn't just suddenly stop drawing ad money, but Google greedily keeping ALL the revenue for itself, destroying the livelihood of some who depended entirely on ad revenues for income. When deliberate detrending, shadow banning, or even altering the content of posts on Facebook or Twitter didn't stop the opposition to Hillary those corporations deleted the accounts of the "offenders". Very Orwellian of them.

The Public Commons was, in historical times, the place where citizens of a community gathered to discuss and debate issues of the day. Being a public place everyone had free access and freedom to say what they wished, aside from assault or battery. Facebook, Twitter and Google/YouTube all began supporting free speech but ended up turning to evil and placing limits on what people could say that went beyond prohibiting that which is already illegal. Some, especially those who own the corporations, and those on the Left whom the corporations represent more than any other part of the political spectrum claim that being private corporations they do not have to honor the 1st Amendment. I disagree. ALL of the Bill of Rights applies to ALL Americans no matter where they are on every square inch of this country, regardless of who owns the soil. According to current political dogma it is a violation of the 1st Amendment for a Christian baker to NOT bake a cake for a gay couple, but it is NOT a violation of the 1st Amendment for Facebook Twitter or YouTube to censor or ban Conservatives. Both businesses depend on consumers from "off the street". An example of their double standard can be seen in a Twitter experiment testing the fairness of Twitters application of the censorship rules:

In previous generations children were taught that "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me". The lesson was "toughen up, the world is a dangerous place. Words will hurt you emotionally ONLY if you let them." Today, Social Justice "Warriors" rampage across our nation attacking people and destroying property, but if confronted in public places where their identity is not hidden behind bandannas, hoodies or balaclavas masks they retreat to their academic "safe places" to be coddled by their Marxist mentors.

Comment Re:Democrats are the enemy (Score 1) 549

fascist dickheads who want to tell them what is and is not okay to do

You just described the very essence of Californian political culture, and increasingly NY, as well.

And who says I hate California? I'm just pointing out that the people in that state got their wish at the polls, and all of their electoral votes went to the candidate that best exemplifies the condescending elitism, corruption, and contempt for the middle class that you seem to treasure. So what's not to like, right?

Comment FTC, not FCC, is the correct agency. (Score 2) 191

Most of the harm from ISP misbehavior is the manifestation of one of two perverse-incentive situations:
  - integration of an ISP into a content-provider megacorp, leading to penalization of competitors or other perceived threats to the larger content-providing component.
  - an under-competitive market situation (monopoly, duopoly, other under-four-competitors) situation, allowing ISPs to provide less than they promised or less than what is expected of "internet service" without a "vote with their feet" option for customers.

Both of these are not internet-technology issues and both are things the FCC handles poorly, and which are outside its mandate. They're better handled by such agencies as the FTC and DOJ, under antitrust and consumer fraud models, than by the FCC.

With respect to the content-provider/ISP vertical integration issue: Trump has already come out opposing the ATT/ Time-Warner merger. Additionally, the mainstream media's pile-on against his campaign has left him with no love for the "content providers". I'd be willing to bet that he'd be all for antitrust action to split up the other ISP ("content transport") / news reporting ("content generation") partnerships under the rubric of "breaking up anticompetitive vertical integration". B-)

Slashdot Top Deals

"No, no, I don't mind being called the smartest man in the world. I just wish it wasn't this one." -- Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias, WATCHMEN