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


Forgot your password?
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:Threshold (Score 1) 409

> These things have all gotten cheaper over the time span you discuss.

Incorrect. A Big Mac cost 49 cents in 1967. 49 cents in 1967 has the same buying power, today, as $3.54 according to the BLS (prices are all in USD btw). Today's Big Mac costs $3.99. That's roughly a 12% increase in price. This is with inflation already calculated as well. A 1967 Volkswagen beetle, new, cost $1,769 or $12,783.04 in today's dollars. A 2017 Beetle starts off at $19995 or ~56% more expensive than its 1967 counterpart. This is including inflation in the calculation as well. Tell me, how do you account for an increase in inflation adjusted price and still claim that price has decreased? I'm paying more than I'd have paid (in inflation adjusted dollars) than I would've in 1967.

> For your 40 hours, your income has grown by 10 times.

From what time period to what time period? According to this chart ( produced by the Economic Policy Insitute, wages haven't not really kept up productivity. And according to this chart ( by Advisor Perspectives, when adjusted for inflation, the buying power of middle class (and lower class for that matter) homes has largely been fairly flat. Wage stagnation is a "hot button issue" and it's well documented that people today can buy less with their wages than they could decades ago.

> So, yeah, a 1940 dollar is smaller than a 1960 dollar; a 2000 dollar is smaller than a 2015 dollar; and something in 2015 which isn't bought for a 2015 price proportionally larger than its 1990 price is cheaper, even if the price tag displays a value numerically-greater.

I've disproven this in the first part of this reply. Your Big Mac today costs 12% more AFTER inflation is calculated in. And your Volkswagen Beetle? 56% MORE AFTER inflation is calculated.

Comment Re:Threshold (Score 1) 409

The point was that in today's, investor driven, "MOAR PROFITS EVERY QUARTER" mantra companies rarely "pass on the savings" out of goodwill. Many companies, these days, don't even compete on price. Look at Wendy's, Burger King, McDonald's, and Arby's. They've all stopped competing on price - minimizing or altogether skirting the dollar menu. Secondly, even as automation has increased since the 30s, the price of goods and services hasn't gone down. As technology has made manufacturing cheaper than even, the price of my Levi's has only grown. As has the price of my car, the price of a drill, and even the price of nails. Indeed, you can't right blame the cost of labor...most of these things are made in countries that were either similar to a typical 1970s wage OR cheaper than that (with some countries paying literally pennies a day). EVEN in the places where products are made, the locals aren't exactly prospering. No one sane person says "Gee, I want to live like a sweatshop worker".

I wouldn't expect any company to lower prices simply because of automation. If history is any indicator, that price will continue to rise and the blame will be passed on as something like "inflation" despite it being cheaper/easier/safer/quicker to produce said item.

Comment Re:Threshold (Score 1) 409

What about when it's all kinds of jobs? What happens when you only need 1 human to maintain 300 machines who can each do the work of 500 people? As more and more of these machines come into the workplace, fewer and fewer jobs are needed. If you automate the building of these machines and that automation can build its own parts as well, you eventually get to a point where there literally isn't enough work for everyone. Capitalism's weakness is automation. It doesn't anticipate the automation of entire industries simultaneously. Most economic theories haven't - particularly when resource creation can't keep up with the population.

Comment Re:Egypt blocks Google... end of story (Score 1) 87

I was replying to the AC post of: "Signal is an awesome app. It reminds me of the old TextSecure app that isn't made any longer, which was a perfect replacement for Android's stock SMS appl" by informing him (and potentially others) that the guys who made TextSecure make Signal as it seemed from the post like AC thought they were completely different apps. It's informative for those who didn't know this information previously, I'm sorry you took offense to that.

Comment Re:It worked for us... (Score 1) 257

If you're "deploying " software, the concept that most people think of is Enterprise functionality. If your "net connection" (whatever that means) "dies" (whatever that means), chances are your IT staff are working to restore that connectivity before deploying additional software (most of which tends to require SOME sort of network connectivity to be useful). In short, few people ever run entirely local apps in any sort of business...and those that do are so far behind the times that no one really cares.

Comment You were a "convenient" target... (Score 1) 122

...because you didn't want to pay your fair share. Sorry, Apple, it's time to pay the piper. You've benefitted off the backs of Euro taxpayers as you utilized their infrastructure. If the US was smart, we'd get our dues as well. We, THE PEOPLE, don't owe any corporation a penny. They exist solely because we allow them to and in exchange WE get income taxes. It's time to pay up. Your trademarks and assets are protected because of my country's military. That has a price, boys.

Comment Re:Kind of consistent, isn't it? (Score 2, Insightful) 210

MS Spyware, Google Analytics, Alexa, and a billion other pieces of tracking out there. Face it, unless you're running everything through a VPN, through TOR, run NoScript, run an adblocker or two, never use any web features that require Javascript, and never reuse usernames then you're being tracked by some entity somewhere. And even TOR isn't a guarantee these days. You don't have privacy on the internet. You never will have privacy on the internet UNLESS you're willing to give up quite a bit of functionality. And honestly, you shouldn't really expect it. The internet isn't some bastion of freedom. It's a series of highly commercial entities who are providing stuff for you in exchange for their being able to market to you OR sell your information to someone else. It's not even about what's fair and equitable - this is simply about capitalism in its finest, unhindered state. You, the end-user, aren't usually the customer - rather you're the resource. You're going to be harvested regardless of your wishes or desires. Meanwhile you stay on an insecure OS and you make it possible for your machine to become a zombie and interrupt MY experience. Don't like it? Well set aside those Libertarian ideas that \. loves so much, boys, only regulation will fix this kind of crap.

Comment Re:heck of a choice (Score 1) 488

> She did not win a majority the popular vote

48 vs're argument includes the other argument is admittedly simpler but accurate: Hillary won the most votes (from the popular vote pool, not the electoral college) than any of the other candidates.In that sense she had the "majority".

> If we continue down this fictional route

It's a potential route, not a fictional one. A series of events, however unlikely, are plausible. I realize this is pedantic.

Slashdot Top Deals

Consultants are mystical people who ask a company for a number and then give it back to them.