Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re: Professional accoutant (Score 1) 369

The hardest jobs to replace are in the physical world where every step has the potential to require on-the-fly adaptation, such as a construction worker.

I'm not so sure those are so hard to replace. I mean they are, based on the way we currently build, but we don't need to build the way we build. In the future (and to some degree, it currently is) construction will just happen in a factory and be assembled on-site.

Comment Re: Free (Score 1) 258

Huh? Where the heck do you live?

Living wages most certainly exist. I make one. I have ever since I graduated university. And it's not at a union shop.

In my fair town the poverty activists have calculated the living wage as just under $20/hr. There are tons of jobs that pay that much. Though to be fair, there are also tons that don't.

Comment Re:Makes no sense (Score 2) 95

They obviously felt they could make more money on their own or at different companies.

Or they wanted the excitement and self-determination that can come from creating a startup, and now they have the war chest to do it without having to risk their family stability or eat ramen for every meal.

Comment Re:so what's new? (Score 1) 70

>> encourages a culture of optimizing for short term showmanship instead of making something people want and creating lasting value.

You've just described the entire US business culture for at least the last 50 years. No-one builds quality products designed to last any more. Everything is actively designed to ensure it needs replacing every 3-5 years now, and to be sold through marketing (push) rather than need (pull).

I know this is a popular thing about which people like to complain, but I'm not sure the alternative is preferable. Technology moves fast, and does offer desirable advantages. What I mean by that is: what is the point of designing things to physically last forever if they become technologically obsolete anyways? Sure, there are some things that will never advance technologically. My 100-year-old hunting knife is just as good as one I could pick up today. But look at most things we use in our daily lives and tell me our current versions don't have advantages over old models. Yes, you can build a washing machine to last for 25 years, but our standards for water efficiency (for example) still advance.

Even toasters, a simple machine, have advanced. Used to be that they used a thermometer to trigger the pop-up. This would burn your toast if you only had one slice. Now they use capacitors to time the pop-up; the mechanism is uncoupled from the amount of bread you've placed in the toaster. If you build things to last forever, you stick them with the technology of the day forever.

Comment Re:seriously? (Score 1) 318

Not to mention "idle hands make for mischief". Paying people to sit around and do nothing is dangerous for any society.

Except how many people will sit around doing nothing? I know I'd get pretty depressed doing that. If I didn't have to work, I'd probably travel, write a book, maybe develop that video game I've been planning in my head. UBI would be amazing for society's cultural pursuits, for research, for innovative design; it would take the risk out of moonshots for sure.

Comment Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score 1) 119

"A rational NIMBY argument would be a bit difficult to come by."

I worked as a planner in a community that was developing a bylaw to permit (land-based) large-scale wind turbines. I heard every reason under the sun for why we shouldn't have them, but the one that really took the cake was one of the main opponents standing up and screaming, "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE WHALES!!!" (keep in mind that this was for land-based turbines).

It took all my strength in the world to not blurt out, "Lady, you don't give a flying F**K about the whales!"

Comment Re:He's off his rocker (Score 1) 203

Another good point about his presidency is the entertainment value. Popcorn sales should go way up. Hillary would have been dull.

Right. Because entertainment value is what we should be looking for in the most powerful person in the world. /sarcasm

Seriously, isn't that what you Americans have the Kardashians for?

Slashdot Top Deals

In a consumer society there are inevitably two kinds of slaves: the prisoners of addiction and the prisoners of envy.

Working...