Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



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

Comment Re:Kicking millions of Chinese out of jobs... (Score 1) 140

Due to its "One Child Policy" China has a rapidly aging and soon to be declining population.

Well, that's easily solved: just do as Europe did and import millions of unlettered muslims. We're already enjoying great benefits here in Europe in such diverse areas as population reduction (with deadly attacks on a weekly basis), elimination of our freedoms, and of course cultural genocide!

Comment Re:New Chrome looks terrible on OS X (Score 2) 67

... what we're seeing now is the endpoint of process that Microsoft feared with Netscape back in the 90s: the marginalization of desktop operating systems as platforms.

Microsoft is not quite free from blame though, with their incessant changing of the look and feel, marginalisation of the desktop in favor of phones and tablets, and the dual-metaphor horror that is metro... I'm not saying they should have stuck with a single style, but nowadays there is no consistent language anymore for controls, thanks in no small part to Microsoft messing around with them so much. So yes, applications can now pick their own look and feel. No one is going to notice anymore.

Comment Re:Huge Mischaracterization - Not promoting Darwan (Score 5, Insightful) 326

Wow, such insanity. Clearly Pokémon Go is promoting a Lamarckian Theory of Evolution, not a Darwinian Theory of Evolution.

We are talking about a people who don't build any buildings with triangles in them, just because the triangle is a symbol of Christianity (it represents the father, son, and holy spirit). And who ban words with the letter 'X' in them because the X resembles a cross. I don't see why we should have any expectation of rationality out of that bunch.

Comment Re:Soros? (Score 1) 1139

But we are eliminating all other programs - that's the premise of UBI. So no more section 8 housing, no more food stamps, no more WIC food (whatever that is). All that remains is that $10k from UBI, which you have just stated is simply not enough.

So what is it:
- You secretly want to keep some other social programs active, despite promising that UBI would be the end of it?
- You want to drive people deeper into poverty than they are today?
- ...?

Comment Re:Soros? (Score 1) 1139

_Bullshit_. GDP contains _everything_. It is not just salaries, it is also everything else in the economy. It is money that goes to roads, to education, to discovering new medicine, to maintenance, to production - everything. It isn't money lying on the table (and presumably grabbed by those evil, evil capitalists), it is the total sum of all economic activity in the country. And since it isn't an actual bank account you can plunder, you cannot simply 'divide it up' and give it to the poor.

And it's not just haggling over price either. Do you honestly believe everyone will be content with their UBI, given that you aim for no more than poverty level? Do you really mean to say that people will say "oh well, I'm fine with my rich neighbour across the street getting $10k just like me, because it is universal"? OF COURSE NOT! He will point out, and quite correctly, that the guy across the street already has more than enough, and really does not need any more - thus leaving more for the truly poor to be helped.

Quite frankly I do not understand how the notion of UBI even makes sense to you people. Would you honestly pay Bill Gates or Larry Ellison UBI? Would you consider that fair, given that that same money could have gone to people currently living on the poverty line? Wouldn't it make much more sense to provide financial assistance only to those who actually need it? What exactly is the big draw of giving money to everyone?

Comment Re:Soros? (Score 2, Insightful) 1139

The same problem comes up in every discussion about UBI, and it is this one: people have no idea of the numbers involved, nor do they seem able to do basic sums. You come up with an impressive sounding list of programs 'that could be eliminated' under UBI, and then you vigorously wave your hands and assert that surely these are worth more than UBI!

Well - no, they are not. According to wikipedia, total expenditure on social programs in the US is $1.3 trillion per year (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States) ), far less than the $3.2 trillion per year needed to provide every American with $10,000/year stated by an earlier poster. So that's already $2 trillion unaccounted for right there. And _no_, government overhead is not anywhere near $2 trillion. You would only reach that figure if every last civil servant in the US (around 2 million, not counting postal workers) worked in social security, and earned around $1,000,000/year.

Is $10,000/year even enough to live on in the US? http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-... lists the price of a one bedroom apartment outside the city center as $900/month, i.e. around $11,000/year. There would be no money left over for food, education, medicine, etc., so anyone who is poor today would still be poor under this new system - and living out on the street. Well, nicely done - you did not eliminate poverty after all, but you did triple the cost of the program. Moreover, you reallocated funds that today go to the poor, and spread them to people who are already well-off.

This last problem will cause massive pressure to 'do something extra' for peope who still live on the street (and perhaps 'a little something' for people who have relatively high medical costs, and perhaps 'a little something more' for veterans or retired civil servants or whatever). Your claims that it would eliminate 'overhead' would quickly disappear as these new programs are put into place, and the government needs to figure out who qualifies and who doesn't.

There are other issues as well, but the simple fact that society simply cannot pay for UBI should already be enough to convince anyone.

Comment Re:Not a surprise... (Score 1) 269

I find it hilarious when the people who shoved alternative energy down our throats all of a sudden discover "short term problems". We were supposed to think long-term, remember? It's all about the planet, not about you? Please remember that when you sit in the dark, with no airco, next time.

As for your assertion that -somehow- the market is responsible for pricing peaks - what alternative do you propose then? There is scarcity, so an allocation must be made in some fashion. Would you prefer it to be done through a market, or would you prefer some unaccountable dictator to make the choice which districts receive power and which ones do not?

Oh wait - maybe you didn't want scarcity. Why then did you design an energy infrastructure that has it built in at its very core? Despite millions of people telling you exactly this would happen?

Comment Re:Not a surprise... (Score 1) 269

It's not really trial and error if you get the expected result, now is it? The learning curve always was "learn to enjoy sitting in the dark waiting for the lights to go back on", but since nobody seemed to care about that at the time ("I'm sure it will happen to other people"), here we are now.

And it's just hilarious to see how the whole mess now gets blaimed on "corruption". The sad truth is that if prices were artificially lowered, demand would quickly outstrip production, and the whole system would come down.

Comment Re:Not a surprise... (Score 4, Insightful) 269

Renewables are not a reliable source of energy: their production levels vary as whatever natural phenomenon they depend on varies. This was known well in advance, as was the necessity to maintain classic plants for base load. A political choice was made not to maintain sufficient plants for base load, and since production through renewable sources does not have sufficient capacity at all times, an allocation scheme for times of tightness was needed - a market, so customers with very high requirements for reliable energy could simply pay more for that privilege while customers with lower requirements could choose to lower their consumption at times when production was insufficient.

So far, it looks to me like everything is working exactly as designed. So what exactly are you complaining about? Blackouts? Those were a known and expected feature of having a high level of renewables without enough classic plants. Varying prices with high peaks? Those were _also_ a known and expected feature of the technology! Or is it simply that you wanted to 'save the planet', as long as it didn't inconvenience you personally with high prices and blackouts?

Don't pretend it is all an evil plot to extort money. You made this bed, now lie in it. I'm just sad to see the people who wanted other options (nuclear, for example) having to suffer with you.

Comment Re:Is it even yet confirmed as terrorism? (Score 2) 278

Last I heard, there was considerable evidence that it might not have been terrorism; it might have just someone going apeshit and committing mass murder.

According to various sources the driver was shouting "allahu akbar" (search for it on Google or read the wikipedia article if you do not believe me). Guns and grenades were found in the vehicle after the attack as well. I'm not sure how that could leave any doubt about whether it was terrorism or not.

Slashdot Top Deals

Any program which runs right is obsolete.

Working...